[...]
>
>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 is right on the money with this. Perhaps there is another
"catch 22" involved here, i.e. perhaps one has to get burned
a few times before one learns to be skeptical of analysis based
on secondary sources.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================