"Primary literature"

Jim Bell (70672.1241@compuserve.com)
17 Apr 96 15:56:01 EDT

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