[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
At 08:14 PM 2/9/99 EST, George wrote:
>"Refute" is by no means an antonym of "support," despite above-mentioned
>popular usage. Just because there is no support available for a hypothesis
>does not mean that the hypothesis is thereby refuted. Refutation removes a
>hypothesis from competition; mere lack of support does not.
Okay, fair enough. So, for everyone to see, here is the reworded sentence
which sparked the whole thing off:
]]Now, to be fair, none of these studies currently published directly test
]]needed to *reject (provisionally)* Olshevsky's assertion: namely an
]]prosauropods and/or ornithischians are also included among the ingroups, so
]]that (in terms of the search mechanics) recovery of a
]]prosauropod-therizinosauorid clade is at least possible.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:email@example.com
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661