[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Guettarda]

On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Scientific papers are primary sources.
> > >
> > > Scientific papers are secondary sources. The experimental or
> > > observational data that the papers draw on are the primary sources.
> >
> > The data is usually published in the paper, so the paper is the primary
> source.
>
> If you want to split hairs like that, then yes, insofar as the paper
> merely reproduces the data, then it's a primary source. The analysis
> of the data and the conclusions drawn from the data in the paper are
> secondary material.


Columbus's logs are primary historical sources - they are a record of his
observations and his interpretation of his observations.  Scientific
research papers present and analyse data, and draw some conclusions from the
data.  Primary sources are not the raw data, nor are they Columbus's
readings of the angles of the stars or the depth of the water.  Court
rulings are primary sources, not the policeman's log books.

No.  Research publications are primary sources.  Review papers are secondary
sources.  Textbooks tend to be secondary or tertiary sources.