Seraphim Blade wrote:
The harm there is exactly why we -do- prohibit original research.
Sounds like a circular argument. No original research was adopted to deal with people who wanted a host for their crackpot theories in physics.
How do old issues of the NYT show something in general?
That he is showing something "in general" is your inference, not his. He shows the statistical results, and leaves it to the reader to draw his conclusion. Raw statistical data is still a presentation of facts. In the scientific method the presentation of data, and theorizing about that data are distinct acts.If the NYT is going to be accepted as a source for the factual content of its articles, why should it not be an authority for its statistical data.
What if the NYT used to have a paragraph in its style guide that said you shouldn't use the phrase except in a few rare cases, put into place in the early 50s, changed that in the mid-80s to state that it was acceptable, and it's been used more and more in the paper to this day?
This argument is based on speculation unless you can cite the specific style guide issues that say this.
What if it was used all over the place, and the NYT was behind the curve?
Then you show evidence to substantiate that.
You're not a statistician (at least, I presume not), and interpretation of raw statistics is -always- more complex than it appears, especially when having to look for (and eliminate) potential skewing factors like the ones I mentioned above.
Presenting raw statistics and interpreting them are two different acts.
Ec