I don’t understand the point you’re arguing against, so I can’t evaluate your argument against it. What’s the conclusion being drawn, in terms of what Dr. Yagami anticipates?
To be fair, theories in philological subjects are rarely about anticipation. It’s not like you can just go and perform a few experimental tests or new observations.
They are about actual anticipation only insofar as possible future discoveries of materials from the past are concerned. Otherwise, they’re about making coherent sense of what has been found so far.
I don’t understand the point you’re arguing against, so I can’t evaluate your argument against it. What’s the conclusion being drawn, in terms of what Dr. Yagami anticipates?
To be fair, theories in philological subjects are rarely about anticipation. It’s not like you can just go and perform a few experimental tests or new observations.
Wait, what are they about then?
They are about actual anticipation only insofar as possible future discoveries of materials from the past are concerned. Otherwise, they’re about making coherent sense of what has been found so far.
Sub-sampling seems to be a useful concept to introduce here. Then you can ‘discover’ things over and over again.