> It struck me during the current discussion that Denis's use of the term
> "primary literature" is off the mark.
>
> Primary literature is any literature that flows directly from an expert
> source. Thus, a book by S. J. Gould is primary. A book that purports to
> summarize Gould is secondary. Someone relying on the latter is using a
> secondary source. But someone reading, and quoting from the former, is using a
> primary source.
>
> Denis is, I think, merely confusing primary with "technical." If Gould writes
> an article for a scholarly journal within his field, this is technical (read:
> unpopular). This is beyond the amateur without a good deal of effort.
>
> But when Gould sets out to explain his theories to the layman, and does so in
> a book, it is primary literature which the layman can read and analyze.
>
> So, dear friends, Phillip Johnson is NOT criticizing secondary sources.
>
> Denis, you almost slipped that one past us!
>
> Jim
James, James, James . . .
You must be a lawyer.
Denis