"Ilmari Karonen" <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote in
message news:441B614A.7020406@vyznev.net...
Fastfission wrote:
[snippety-snip]
I suspect you're wrong about this being universal.
It may well be true
for history, but in mathematics, for example, citing primary sources is
perfectly reasonable and even desirable. The difference, of course, is
that history, unlike mathematics, requires context and interpretation.
The difference is between recounting what someone actually said, for which
you need primary sources, and deciding whether what they said was true, for
which you almost always require the support of secondary sources.
Both have their place and function.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]