> Thomas L Moore wrote:
>
> ____________SNIP_______________________
>
> You mean for pointing out how lazy the critics of science can be?
>
> ___________BIG_SNIP____________________
>
> <Sigh> No, Tom, for the umpteenth time, I mean that it's unfair for
> scientists to demand that non-scientists be conversant in the primary
> scientific literature in order to criticize their *LOGIC*, NOT their
> scientific expertise. If a statement is a tautology, or is
> self-referential, or just generally doesn't make LOGICAL sense, having read
> or not having read the primary literature is, in most cases, irrelevant.
Ah, but my point is how can you be sure that something isn't logical
without reading the primary literature? My point elsewhere with
radiometric dating is a prime example. YECs run around claiming it's
illogical and that the method is completely flawed when the do not
examine what radiometric dating is in detail because their objections
were taken care of in the primary literature, and they intentionally
ignore the primary literature.
This is _often_ the case, so why should I take any argument based on
secondary literature seriously?
Tom