On 20/05/2004 14:01, furuli AT online.no wrote:
...
To ignore the examples that contradict one's view with the argument
that they are errors, does not recommend itself as a good
scientific method. Errors will occur, but they must be shown to be
errors on the basis of a scientific analysis. If you have studied
the Philosophy of science, you should be familiar with the problem
of induction; one million white swans do not prove that all swans
are white, but two black swans, who are not dyed or have gone
through a fire, will falsify the hypothesis. Thus, the 1.000
non-past WAYYIQTOLs are a stronger basis for saying that WAYYIQTOL
is not semantically speaking past tense than the 12.000 WAYYIQTOLs
occurring in past narratives. ...
Your argument from swans is an interesting one. Suppose we do find a
million white swans and two black ones. What do we conclude? Of
course not that all swans are white. But we suspect that there is
some reason for the exceptions. Maybe the black ones are a different
species, or mutations. Or maybe they have been in some special
environment which has changed their colour. Good scholars will look
for a reason. But they will not argue that "not all swans are white,
therefore the colour of swans is irrelevant". However, that seems to
be how you argue when you reject the significance of the observation
that the great majority of WAYYIQTOLs are sequential, and most of
these are in past context although some are future because they
follow future verb forms.
--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.