>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.
I think the distinction Denis was aiming to make was between papers in
refereed journals and publications like popular books in which there is
less critical scrutiny. As Art Chadwick pointed out, claims in refereed
journals are constrained by data, and thus you wouldn't expect grandiose
claims to be made. When a Dawkins or a Gould writes a popular book he has
a forum in which he can include his speculations. Denis is quite right if
he is contending that someone not familiar with the primary literature
would have difficulty separating speculation from hard fact.
>
>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.
>
Still, he's not tempering what he reads with a knowledge of the literature
in the field gleaned from the refereed journals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148