1

The question in... er... question is here:

Does Louis Vuitton burn all their unsold bags?

I find this question interesting, I believe it is on-topic as there is quite something to be skeptical about, but you wont find anything on scolars.google (or any scientific or other source) to confirm or deny.

The only way you could officially (and within the rules of this site) confirm or deny this belief is to get an official position from the company in question. I highly doubt that this information would be in any of their literature (eg, website FAQ's) and so they only way you could answer this is to ask the company directly to confirm or deny.

But wouldnt this come under "Original Research"? Thoughts on this?

| |
1

But wouldnt this come under "Original Research"?

No. Notable references not only include scientific publications and official statements. They can include well-researched news articles published in a respectable newspaper or journal, for instance.

Otherwise this site would shut down pretty quickly. Plenty of questions here don’t have an answer involving a scientific publication, nor do they need to.

| |
  • But im not talking about "well-researched news articles published in a respectable newspaper or journal" - you won't find that in this case. You'll probably only get definitive proof by asking the company directly. Hence the "Original Research" point. – Jamiec Oct 2 '12 at 10:49
  • Why wouldn’t you find an article about it in a respectable newspaper? Similarly, the current answer actually gives a very authoritative answer (not a definitive one, but so what?) – Konrad Rudolph Oct 2 '12 at 10:52
  • If thats authorative then the bar has been significantly lowered. It just re-repeats the same legend without any sources whatsoever. – Jamiec Oct 2 '12 at 11:06
  • 1
    @Jamiec There’s no lowered bar. We expect notable sources and of course not all sources are of equal quality but that never meant that you can only quote those sources with the highest standards of quality (i.e. peer-reviewed scientific studies). – Konrad Rudolph Oct 2 '12 at 11:37
0

One of the basic principles of scientific skepticism is Sagan's principle:

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence

We stand by this principle on Skeptics, in that we ask for (factual) evidence of sufficient authoritativeness to support answers.

But, what does this work in practice? In practice we use the SE platform and voting system to select the answers based on this principle. If you find the evidence in an answer convincing, up vote it. Otherwise down vote or leave it.

In short, we let the community decide whether the presented references are appropriate or not.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .