First, regarding Mr. Johnson, you wrote:
<<His arguments are indeed sound, but sound within the context of SECONDARY
LITERATURE. He is just a glorified recycler.>>
But if his arguments are sound, as you propose, what does it matter what the
source is? This is that priestly distaste for expert testimony that just
doesn't wash. Is the expert properly cited? Then deal with it.
<<And this indeed is a terrible problem
with the modern scientific literature. It is so technical that it
requires many times an advance degree in the area for one to understand.
And please understand, I am not saying the NS is not intelligent.>>
Well, that's a relief! We pagans were beginning to wonder. ;-) But that is why
expert testimony is so valuable. I wouldn't expect you to get a handle on
commercial law from the "primary literature" without a struggle, but you can
certainly read a hornbook and figure a lot of it out. Read Prosser on Torts,
and you'll get a solid overview of that area of law. And with your native
intelligence, you could offer up some valid criticisms.
Now Phil Johnson is a very smart guy. When he reads the experts--Gould,
Dawkins, Behe, etc.--he can figure out exactly what they're saying, WITHOUT
needing to delve into the arcane details. It isn't necessary. Only the priests
say that it is, while at the same time they ignore the arguments themselves.
Take, for example, the differences between the neo-Darwinian synthesis and
punc. eq. It is quite clear what those differences are, and one can rely on
the experts to share that clarity. Then one can assess the results, using
simple logic.
This is what Johnson does so well. But the
"primary-literature-priesthood-dodge" is just that. The merits are ignored.
I'll bet you could make a good point or two about strict liability after
reading Prosser. I wouldn't sit there and say, "Nope, you've gotta go back and
read Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad and its progeny before I'll listen." I'd
deal with the substance of what you're saying. I'd consider Prosser a valid
source. I'd trust his characterizations.
<<And yes, let us also, DEMAND that the NS examine him/herself as to whether
they have indeed a reasonable grasp of the PRIMARY DATA and PRIMARY
LITERATURE. And if they can't read it, let them be honest in saying so.
Further, let's make them aware that the recycling of GOBS & GOBS of
SECONDARY LITERATURE does not advance the debate, but merely clutters the
discussion.>
No, that's a priestly demand. What matters is (a) whether the experts cited
are qualified; and (b) whether the extrapolation from that is logically sound.
On this score, Phillip Johnson and even the tenacious Mr. Jones are on solid
ground.
Jim