zero 0000 wrote:
From: "The
Cunctator" <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Primary sources are hard if not impossible to
verify. Don't use them.
I'm hoping you mean "unpublished oral accounts" when you say
"primary sources".
Primary sources are *by definition* preferable to secondary sources
in most cases.
There are important exceptions to this. Some types of primary source
need interpretation that requires expertise. For example, diaries and
autobiographies are often inaccurate and self-serving, and intelligence
reports often include rumors and suspicions along with facts.
These are all valid observations
In such a
case, it can be better to rely on an expert who has examined the evidence
and weighed it against other evidence and context.
In other words you believe that it is better to kiss the ass of the
secondary expert than to agree with the primary expert. And who
establishes whether that secondary expert has in fact examined that
evidence? There have been some disturbing cases recently suggesting
that the existing peer-review process is broken.
At least one should
check on secondary sources to see whether there is any dispute over the
accuracy of the primary source.
Absolutely! That's an important first step in any kind of critical
evaluation.
Ec