From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray
Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
JAY JG wrote:
No, that's a strawman argument.
"Deductive reasoning" becomes original
research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to
assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that
uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces,
that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source
which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already
presented.
Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something like
politics or international law. And, in the latter case, if done by the
editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original research as
well, as per the No original research policy.
The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense
comment pulled out of
imagination. It has no research attached to it at all, original or
otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by "more closely
related. So before you complain about the strawmen of others you should
stop using them yourself.
Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but that
would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing more
important things like arguing about whether or not 172's contributions were
"balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.
Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors. If a
particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it too
is a "loose cannon theory".
Jay.