From: "Charles Matthews"
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
Jay JG wrote
The inevitable
response is "this isn't original research, these are simple facts."
Even
if
they are indeed "simple facts" (and
that is often not the case), putting
"simple facts" together to build a case, in order to refute a quoted
argument or position you see in some article which you don't agree with,
is
"original research."
Can't really agree with that. Banning deductive logic from articles isn't
a
good idea. As I have said here before, that seems to me to be an inflation
of the original research policy, meant to bar crank theories, to an
unreasonable extension of it.
Yep, that's the more nuanced version of the argument. However, the cranks
themselves are full of simple "deductive logic" arguments that they feel
need to be added to articles, in order to balance the "bias" they see in
some cited opinion. And in any event "deductive logic" and "building a
case" are not quite the same thing.
Jay.