4 ms·

> the primary sources; that's where the truth is Why is a primary source a better source for the "truth"? Often secondary sources have distilled the original

> the primary sources; that's where the truth is Why is a primary source a better source for the "truth"? Often secondary sources have distilled the original rough ideas into more refined expressions of the original complex ideas. A secondary source will also have had more chances to catch any mistakes.

mmooss 2y ago
The secondary sources take the primary source facts (if the author is serious and honest) and add someone's subjective perspectives, etc. Those facts are the 'truths'. For more, look up reading on the scientific method and empiricism. I'm not disparaging all secondary sources; I read them too. But there's a reason serious research requires primary sources.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  I think people are confused by the definitions of primary/secondary sources. As an example, almost all textbooks are actually secondary sources. The primary source may be a journal article. And yes, often, those secondary sources are far superior than the primary sources. Insisting on reading all those journal articles as opposed to a good textbook is simply indulging in a fetish, IMO.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > I think people are confused by the definitions of primary/secondary sources. Sorry: Primary - the actual evidence. The actual letter written by Jefferson; the ice core itself, etc. For example, if you are an historian writing about Jefferson, you actually travel to the archive and read Jefferson's letters and look through the other papers, etc. - the actual stuff. Secondary - the journal article, the scholarly book, based on primary sources (without those, it's just nonsense) Tertiary - textbooks, news reports, etc. about the secondary source Higher order - blog posts, social media, etc.: usually they haven't seen the evidence, haven't read the journal article, may have read the news report but often only read another social media post ... > Insisting on reading all those journal articles as opposed to a good textbook is simply indulging in a fetish, IMO. WTF do you know about me or anyone else to judge their choices? Your ignorance of the need for direct knowledge of things shines through. Here, the primary source is me; having no primary source your assertion isn't even secondary, just nonsense. Enjoy 'research' on social media.
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      > WTF do you know about me or anyone else to judge their choices? I don't, and did not claim to. And yes, one can and usually does judge at some level. I don't need to know much about someone to have an opinion that intentionally touching random strangers' private parts in public is problematic. Try not to be so sensitive. My comment was not a criticism of anyone. > Your ignorance of the need for direct knowledge of things shines through. Now who is making assumptions without knowing me? I spent years being paid to do research at academic institutions, so it's not a random person on the Internet saying it. Sometimes the primary source is fantastic. More often it's inferior to better written pieces. The reason journals like Rev Modern Physics have a high impact factor is precisely due to the fact that distillations can be superior to primary sources. It's a journal where a highly influential person in the field writes a (lengthy) journal article that is basically a well written, accessible tutorial of the whole field. Have you tried reading Maxwell's original works? Do you not think there's a good reason pretty much every EM textbook teaches Maxwell's equations in a very different form from what he proposed?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - robwwilliams 2y ago
        Thanks for your explanations. It would be lovely if primary sources and data were some kind of ground truth with a capital T. But no: they are often messy first pass experiments. If we knew what we were doing it would not be research ;-) A dose of Ian Hacking or Paul Feyerabend or Nancy Cartwright could be curative.
    - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
      Many, many times in historical research the "primary source" (I'm using your definition here because in historical circles the primary source is not always the original artifact or document) is lost to time. It's then up to historians, anthropologists, and other researchers to figure out whether the artifact in question actually existed and whether there's agreement among other sources on what it said. In historical research at least having a primary source like the "actual letter written by Jefferson" is often rare and only found in more modern historical sources preserved by stable institutions. A great example is the Library of Baghdad where we know many texts existed but we still don't know the breadth of all the available texts nor their contents.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mmooss 2y ago

The secondary sources take the primary source facts (if the author is serious and honest) and add someone's subjective perspectives, etc. Those facts are the 'truths'. For more, look up reading on the scientific method and empiricism. I'm not disparaging all secondary sources; I read them too. But there's a reason serious research requires primary sources.

BeetleB 2y ago
I think people are confused by the definitions of primary/secondary sources. As an example, almost all textbooks are actually secondary sources. The primary source may be a journal article. And yes, often, those secondary sources are far superior than the primary sources. Insisting on reading all those journal articles as opposed to a good textbook is simply indulging in a fetish, IMO.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > I think people are confused by the definitions of primary/secondary sources. Sorry: Primary - the actual evidence. The actual letter written by Jefferson; the ice core itself, etc. For example, if you are an historian writing about Jefferson, you actually travel to the archive and read Jefferson's letters and look through the other papers, etc. - the actual stuff. Secondary - the journal article, the scholarly book, based on primary sources (without those, it's just nonsense) Tertiary - textbooks, news reports, etc. about the secondary source Higher order - blog posts, social media, etc.: usually they haven't seen the evidence, haven't read the journal article, may have read the news report but often only read another social media post ... > Insisting on reading all those journal articles as opposed to a good textbook is simply indulging in a fetish, IMO. WTF do you know about me or anyone else to judge their choices? Your ignorance of the need for direct knowledge of things shines through. Here, the primary source is me; having no primary source your assertion isn't even secondary, just nonsense. Enjoy 'research' on social media.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > WTF do you know about me or anyone else to judge their choices? I don't, and did not claim to. And yes, one can and usually does judge at some level. I don't need to know much about someone to have an opinion that intentionally touching random strangers' private parts in public is problematic. Try not to be so sensitive. My comment was not a criticism of anyone. > Your ignorance of the need for direct knowledge of things shines through. Now who is making assumptions without knowing me? I spent years being paid to do research at academic institutions, so it's not a random person on the Internet saying it. Sometimes the primary source is fantastic. More often it's inferior to better written pieces. The reason journals like Rev Modern Physics have a high impact factor is precisely due to the fact that distillations can be superior to primary sources. It's a journal where a highly influential person in the field writes a (lengthy) journal article that is basically a well written, accessible tutorial of the whole field. Have you tried reading Maxwell's original works? Do you not think there's a good reason pretty much every EM textbook teaches Maxwell's equations in a very different form from what he proposed?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - robwwilliams 2y ago
      Thanks for your explanations. It would be lovely if primary sources and data were some kind of ground truth with a capital T. But no: they are often messy first pass experiments. If we knew what we were doing it would not be research ;-) A dose of Ian Hacking or Paul Feyerabend or Nancy Cartwright could be curative.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    Many, many times in historical research the "primary source" (I'm using your definition here because in historical circles the primary source is not always the original artifact or document) is lost to time. It's then up to historians, anthropologists, and other researchers to figure out whether the artifact in question actually existed and whether there's agreement among other sources on what it said. In historical research at least having a primary source like the "actual letter written by Jefferson" is often rare and only found in more modern historical sources preserved by stable institutions. A great example is the Library of Baghdad where we know many texts existed but we still don't know the breadth of all the available texts nor their contents.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]