[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; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> Cc: email@example.com
> 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
> true antonym. Most data neither support nor refute a hypothesis; they're
> generally irrelevant. Antonyms: "support/not support" and "refute/not
> 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
refute/support as the "0-1" examples.