[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[K P]

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.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com


No, don't split hairs here.  The original research is not the data table,
but the conclusions and analysis drawn from the data.  The experimental
results are just results, they're not research without the paper, without
the conclusions, without the analysis.

Data is an ex-situ fossil--iIf I have a fossil and I don't know where it was
found, it's worthless.  Research is not an ex-situ fossil, it's an in-situ
fossil.  It's worth something.

Research is scientific inquiry, it's not random pieces of data out of
context.  Data tables and uninterpreted experimental results are not
research.

KP