[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Refutations and the Middle J (was Re: Another Alxasaurus quer y & others)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com [SMTP:Dinogeorge@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 11:49 PM
> To:   Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com; th81@umail.umd.edu;
> jjackson@interalpha.co.uk
> Cc:   dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject:      Re: Refutations and the Middle J (was Re: Another Alxasaurus
> query & others)
> In a message dated 2/9/99 9:51:23 PM EST, Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com writes:
> << Normally, we use refute/support in describing how data relates to
>  a hypothesis.
>       A given data set may tend to support or refute a given hypothesis,
>  but it does not
>       necessarily settle the issue.  New data may do the opposite. >>
> It's not an "either/or" situation, which is what would be required to have
> a
> true antonym. Most data neither support nor refute a hypothesis; they're
> generally irrelevant. Antonyms: "support/not support" and "refute/not
> refute,"
> but not "support/refute" (or, for that matter, "not support/not refute"),
> despite popular usage (as described above).

        Agreed, a lot of data turns out to be irrelevant or ambiguous.  I
was using
        refute/support as the "0-1" examples.