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

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> On 12/19/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A database search like that described is different; it's not
>> definitive and not a single source that can be cited.  It's headed
>> into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive;
>> there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be
>> exhaustive and complete.

There's no need at all to "deem the result definitive and decisive,"  
any more than we deem that everything with a cited reliable source is  
"true." The search and its result can simply be stated. The standard  
is "verifiability, not truth," and the issue is whether an  
independent observer can repeat the same search on the same database  
and get the same results.

You just cite the source and make sure anyone else can verify it. You  
don't _evaluate_ the source beyond making sure it meets the "reliable  
source" standards... which are of course loose (and disputed).

Just as one might say "the word 'floccinaucinihilipilification' is an  
entry word in the Oxford English Dictionary," or "the word  
'floccinaucinihilipilification' is not an entry word in Merriam- 
Webster's Third International dictionary." Both are highly meaningful  
and objective, and both refer to respected authorities.

There's no need to draw any conclusions such as  
"floccinaucinihilipilification is a word" or  
"floccinaucinihilipilification is not a word" or  
"floccinaucinihilipilification is a British word but not an American  
word."

>