From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
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.
But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics. The
reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors.
Huh? Of course we're all editors. And editors can't use Wikipedia articles
to present novel theses etc.
There's very little in the way of original research
done here in politics;
you're confusing original research with original speculation.
Hmm, interesting use of a semantic argument, but irrelevant to the No
original research policy.
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".
"Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack". The POV that
you
push does not need a basis in reality.
Huh? I haven't brought my own ideas or POV here, nor are they "under
attack." The No original research policy is clear; whether or not you
accept is another matter entirely.
As for 172, it's a question of his bringing balance
to some points by
removing the half-truths and innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf
pack
"Anti-communist wolf pack"? Sheesh! The comment was meant to inject a
lighter note into the discussion, though in hindsight I suppose I should
have said that the list could return to the more important task of deciding
whether or not Australia is a constitutional monarchy or a republic, since
this kind of over the top response from you on the 172 debate should have
been entirely predictable.
>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".
Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless. Are you
suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D
Sorry Ray, you're not making any sense. Original research is research done
by Wikipedia editors and presented in Wikipedia articles, as opposed to
reasearch published in other reputable venues.
Jay.