> Hello, all. A brief introduction before I comment on the current
> thread. My name is Justin Keller, and I'm a philosophy/political science
> student at Northwestern. If folks like Jim Bell and Steve Jones aren't
> experts, I'm not sure what that makes me--I don't receive my degree till
> June. :)
> Tom wrote earlier:
> >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.
> First, good point about YECs making flawed in their criticisms.
> Even as a "non-expert" reading "dumbed-down" ICR literature, I have a hard
> time swallowing much of what I've read.
> Second, I'm going to have to agree with Jim here. We can be sure
> something isn't logical without reading the primary literature--we can know
> if it is invalid or not. But we do need the primary literature to test for
> soundness. An argument is valid if, given the truth of the premises, the
> conclusion necessarily follows. An argument is sound if it is both valid
> and has true premises.
My point is that quite often secondary material often do not include all
the information to make a valid judgement on the logic, which is exactly
the point regarding YECs, not that just make flawed critical claims.
They are often critical of the gross generalizations made in secondary
literature. A reader could easily think their logic is correct,
especially when they're unfamiliar with the literature. Indeed, that
happens even on this reflector. So, why on earth would I trust any
"serious" analysis of science based on secondary literature?
Tom