On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 14:51:07 -0700 you wrote:
AC>Denis says:
DL>And yes, let us also, DEMAND that the NS examine him/herself as to
>whether they have indeed a reasonable grasp of the PRIMARY DATA and
>PRIMARY LITERATURE. And if they can't read it, let them be honest in
>saying so. Further, let's make them aware that the recycling of GOBS
>& GOBS of SECONDARY LITERATURE does not advance the debate, but
>merely clutters the discussion.
AC>The dichotomy Denis seeks to develop between primary and secondary
>is certainly important to him.
Indeed. The "dichotomy" seems unique to him. He seems to postulate
some sort of loss of essential information between the data in a
scientist's "primary" technical paper intended for other scientists
and his "secondary" paper in a popular scientific journal (e.g. New
Scientist, Scientific American, etc), summarising the same data for
the general public. I doubt if the editors of those journals would
agree with Denis' thesis.
AC>However, every paper in the scientific literature, including all of
>Denis' "primary literature" is dependent on the work of others. That
>is why they all contain bibliographies.
Good point. I suspect that scientists in the real world all use
secondary sources. They just wouldn't have the time or resources to
go back to the original primary sources. There is an amusing story in
Darwin on Trial (p145) where the authors of the California Science
Framework for California public schools actually copied a cytochrome c
table from a creationist textbook complete with typographical errors!
AC>But in truth scientists rarely have anything of substance to say in
>the primary literature concerning origins, evolution, etc., because
>the things they say in that context are supposed to be constrained by
>data. The conclusions about evolution and origins that become the
>theory are conclusions elaborated in secondary works.
Good point. Maybe that's why Denis does not actually quote from a
scientists' primary sources to correct my quotes from the same
scientists secondary sources?
AC>Darwin's book is a case in point.
Yes. I thought of that too. Darwin's Origin of Species was a secondary
source written for the general public from primary sources, namely
Darwin's field notebooks.
AC>If Denis wishes to eliminate secondary sources, he must also
>eliminate the theory he espouses so vigorously (I only wish I felt as
>strongly about my own theory!) unless he can point me to *a* primary
>paper that elaborates his views.
Denis rarely supports his own views with sources of any kind. He just
pontificates and we are all supposed to fall over and believe it on
his own authority. The logical absurdity of his argument is that if
he states something on this Reflector, even if it is from a primary
source, no one can use it, because it would then become a secondary
source and hence unreliable! :-)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------