At 05:43 09/10/2004, you wrote:
>On Friday 08 October 2004 08:45, Julian Bradley wrote:
> > >I think you'll find that that is an assertion, actually.
> >
> > FWIW, and isn't semantics fun, the statement could be an assertion if I
> > asserted it, but if I put it up for reality testing, proving or disproving,
> > then it's not unreasonable to see it as a hypothesis.
>
>I don't see the point of a "hypothesis" that doesn't include an idea about
>why...
>
>No, you assert above that something is so, but do not hypothesise why that is
>the case.
>
>
>--
>Adrian Midgley Open Source software is better
>GP, Exeter http://www.defoam.net/
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/hypothesis
I think that you'll find that while your usage is not wrong, neither is
mine. I'd also checked my home dictionary before my last post, but
Websters as above is available to all. Hypotheses may relate to
explanations, but can relate to any supposition.
I'm not sure why you're feeling so strident about this?
Julian
|