On 17 Apr 96 15:56:01 EDT you wrote:
JB>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 may have made clear what he means by "primary" and "secondary"
sources, but I haven't seen it - I don't read all his posts and I was
unsubscribed for a week. I assume he means technical papers intended
for other scientists as primary sources and everything else (eg.
journal articles and books) as secondary sources.
That would mean that Darwin's Origin of Species is a secondary source
and inadmissable for quoting from, but Darwin's original field notes
are? Also, on this basis, very little of Gould or Dawkins would be of
any value in the Creation - Evolution debate because those writers do
little or no primary research themselves, but just summarise the
primary sources of others. But somehow I think Gould and Dawkins
would not agree that their writings cannot be used as source material
in the Creation - Evolution debate! :-)
JB>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.
I do not necessarily disagreed. But most of Gould's popular books are
just articles from "scholarly journals within his field", eg. Natural
History, etc. I am sure the editors of Natural History would be
suprised to learn that Prof. Gould's articles in their journal are of
little value as source material in the Creation - Evolution debate!
:-)
JB>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.
See above. Most of Gould's books *are* direct reprints of his articles
in said "primary literature".
JB>So, dear friends, Phillip Johnson is NOT criticizing secondary
>sources. Denis, you almost slipped that one past us!
And what was Denis' scholarly answer? Wait for it....
DL>James, James, James . . .
>You must be a lawyer.
Gee. I wish I could go back to university, get three Ph.D's and be
able to reason like that! :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------