> Thomas Moore writes:
>
> << The fact about "pop science" is
> that it is intentionally "dumbed down" for the layman. Debunking "dumbed
> down" ideas isn't a very good idea because in reality you're debunking
> strawmen. It is indeed unfortunate that people who write "pop science"
> have to "dumb down" the science, but Gould, Sagan, Dawkins, and all the
> others do have to do so. >>
>
> I'd love to hear Gould respond to this. Nice characterization.
Most scientists would agree to an extent. Simplification of science
often generalizes to such an extent that it makes the argument only a
half-truth. Radiometric dating is a good example. YEC commonly attack
the generalization of radiometric dating as being exactly how it's done,
when in fact most of their arguments are not valid when you look at the
real situation.
>
> But it isn't valid. Explaining in simple terms what is going on in specialized
> fields is actually a tough thing to do. "Dumbing down" it's not.
>
Sure, the words "dumbing down" can be taken as insulting, but it's valid.
> << Punk eek, etc., are based on a wide variety of
> sources and is secondary literature when in popular form, no matter who
> the author is. If it's simplified and summarized, it is obviously
> secondary. >>
>
> You've made the same mistake Denis has. Even when you read the technical
> journals (and I have) the authors will quote the research of others. So that's
> secondary as well. Just because the article is in a peer journal doesn't mean
> it is devoid of secondary source material. But that's not the crucial
> distinction.
Only the discussions of other people's work is secondary. I did not make
a claim anywhere that peer reviewed literature is 100% primary, so you
leveled a straw man. What I said was that if you're summarizing previous
work, that's secondary.
>
> The key, once again, is what is coming from the author as the author's OWN.
> Gould is a good translator. And when he's translating his OWN work, he's a
> primary source. Even if it is in popular form.
>
No, that is 100% false. If he is summarizing previous work, INCLUDING
HIS OWN, then it is a secondary source. It's only primary if he's
developing new ideas or thoughts or research.
> The priests, who stay in the tower, don't really like that. They have
Yes, we like intellectual honesty. I'm not saying popular works can't be
primary sources, I'm saying if the material in question is a summary, it is
a SECONDARY source, no matter how much you want to cry about it. BTW,
from your intent in the use of the words "priests" or "priesthoods," I
will consider those to be what they are, AH attacks.
> developed their own, specialized language, have their advanced degrees, and
> want to enjoy them. So if one of their own sends down a translation, some of
> them get angry. One might even accuse the brother of "dumbing down" the
> scriptures. But all he has done is share it with the people.
>
If I somehow insulted you by stating what you're taking as
primary literature as being "dumbed down," I am sorry. But, on the other
hand, I'm not sorry for saying "dumbed down," I call things as I see
them. I greatly appreciate "dumbed down" material in fields that I'm not
an "expert" in, but I know for a fact they make a large number of
simplifications which can alter how I view an issue.
> And when he's sharing his own view of things, it's a primary source.
Only, I repeat, ONLY if it is HIS view, reseach, et al., that is not just
a summary of his or other's work. Primary sources IS NOT about the
author, it's about the MATERIAL contianed. You're fixated on this
priesthood thing - and you use it selectively.
Tom