-----
Message: 6
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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I'm hoping you mean "unpublished oral accounts" when you say "primary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. 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. At least one should check on secondary sources to see whether there is any dispute over the accuracy of the primary source.
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
zero 0000 wrote:
From: "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com On 3/17/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@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I'm hoping you mean "unpublished oral accounts" when you say "primary sources".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