>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.
The dichotomy Denis seeks to develop between primary and secondary is
certainly important to him. However, every paper in the scientific
literature, including all of Denis' "primary literature" is dependent on the
work of others. That is why they all contain bibliographies. But in truth
scientists rarely have anything of substance to say in the primary
literature concerning origins, evolution, etc., because the things they say
in that context are supposed to be constrained by data. The conclusions
about evolution and origins that become the theory are conclusions
elaborated in secondary works. Darwin's book is a case in point.
If Denis wishes to eliminate secondary sources, he must also eliminate the
theory he espouses so vigorously (I only wish I felt as strongly about my
own theory!) unless he can point me to *a* primary paper that elaborates his
views.
Art
http://chadwicka.swac.edu