<< 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.
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.
<< 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.
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.
The priests, who stay in the tower, don't really like that. They have
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.
And when he's sharing his own view of things, it's a primary source.
Jim