[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd) (Ray Saintonge)

[jayjg]

On 12/22/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
> > From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> >
> > Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see what that can't be broadened just a bit. For example,
> >> let's suppose a library has an online catalog... let's say an online
> >> catalog that's accessible to anyone. (Two that come to mind are the
> >> Cornell University Library, and the 16,000-volume public library of
> >> Bergen-op-Zoom in the Netherlands... well actually it seems to be
> >> offline but it was available a few years ago).
> >>
> >> You can't prove a negative, but you can certainly say "his book is
> >> not in the Cornell University Library" or whatever, and cite a link
> >> to the search or a description of how to do the search. This doesn't
> >> seem very different to me from a citation.
> >>
> > More precisely you can say that you could not find the book listed in
> > the Cornell University Library Catalog.  It's not the same even though
> > the correlation between the two statements will be strong.
>
> Yes, I stand corrected. Quite right. Or even "the book was not found
> in an online search of the Cornell University Library Catalog." If
> the citation gives the details of the search, that gives the
> opportunity for someone else to check and point out that the search
> succeeds if you spell the title differently. Not at all impossible.

No, the accurate statement is "This specific online search by Daniel
P.B. Smith on this specific date did not return any results". And, of
course, there's no guarantee that 1 minute after Daniel P.B. Smith
does his search, the book will not be acquired, or entered into the
catalog, or re-indexed properly because it had been improperly entered
before, or...

Once one is forced to make an *accurate* (non original research)
statement, it starts looking ridiculous, and rightly so.

Jay.

Jay.