> Terry writes:
>
> <<I disagree with Jim here. Most of what Stephen Jay Gould writes is
> secondary because he is often summarizing the work of others.>>
>
> This is true when he is writing about the work of others. But it is not true
> when he is popularizing his own ideas. And THOSE are the ideas Phil Johnson
> analyzes. Those are primary (though popular) sources. I don't see anything
> wrong with that.
>
> That is treating Gould as Gould: a primary source for his own ideas. It can't
> be any other way when he's writing on behalf of himself.
That depends. When he's discussing and summarizing past work, including
his own work, it is a secondary source. 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.
>
> Dawkins is to the same effect. The Blind Watchmaker is primary Dawkins
> literature (albeit popular) and is therefore open to analysis by his intended
> audience, of whom Phil Johnson is a member.
>
It's only primary in terms of personal philosophy - assuming he doesn't
publish these ideas elsewhere first. In terms of the science discussed,
it is secondary.
> You call this "pop science," but that doesn't mean they are writing stuff they
> think is without merit. Pop science is merely interpreting the technical junk
> for the average reader. But it is no less valid in the eyes of the authors.
> And no less primary.
i.e. it's dumbed down with simplifying assumptions and descriptions.
They think the ideas are important enough to share, but they also realize
they can't explain the complex issues at the level required to understand
the ideas fully. These simplified interpretations of "technical junk"
are secondary sources and must be treated as such. Since they are dumbed
down, attempting to debunk the science at that level can be an incredibly
stupid thing to do. You could elaborate on the orginal ideas to then
debunk them, but you need to go to the primary sources.
> <<I think that key idea between primary and secondary literature is the
> originality of the work or idea.>>
>
> I have to disagree with that. The key idea between primary and secondary
> is...primary and secondary. Is the writer writing about his own research? Or
> is the writer gathering up and summarizing the work of others?
>
Gathering up and summarizing research that includes one's own work is
still secondary, since it's still being summarized and simplified.
> In many respects, too, the secondary literature may be more valuable than the
> primary. A gifted writer like Gordon Rattray Taylor took tons of primary and
> secondary material and wove it into accurate, understandable works the general
> public could understand.
But this should be the starting point for someone interesting in a
subject, not the ending point. It's still secondary, and it still
requires interested parties to delve deeper.
>
> But the main point still holds. When Gould writes about punk eek, it's from
> the old horse's mouth itself. It is primary literature. When Ian Tattersall
> writes about his own fossil research in a book for the layman (The Fossil
> Trail), it is primary as well. How can Tattersall writing about Tattersall's
> research, or Gould writing about Gould's research, be anything else BUT
> primary?
I strongly disagree. 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 have focused on the author, not the type of publication.
Again, you've fallen into your own form of "priesthood" fallacy. That
is, if Gould is the "priest," then anything written by him about his own
work must be "priestly." Simple rule, if the author is summarizing
previous work, of his own or others, it is secondary.
Tom