Yeah, that's nonsensical. Sorry. No kinder way to put it. You're saying that people shouldn't be able to discuss that episode of Cosmos about black holes unless they've read Kip Thorne's original research. This is a ridiculous standpoint. Stephen Hawking didn't write A Brief History of Time because he wanted to try something without a lot of math, he wrote it to popularize science. The entire approach of science educators should be to demistify and broaden the appeal of exciting but not-necessarily-accessible research so that people can, say, support the Superconducting Supercollider over the ISS because the SSC would have actually done research. You don't need to read a scientific paper about the likely weight of the Higgs Boson to have an opinion as to whether or not it's worth spending $8b finding it. Primary research is NOT intended for rhetorical pyrotechnics, nor is it intended for policy decisions. Primary research is intended to broaden the knowledge base of experts so that those experts can advise non-experts. Throwing original research into an internet pissing match simply shows that you don't know how to convince your audience - if you did, you'd explain why that original research makes your point instead of writing "RTFM n00b."
I think it's one thing to tell someone a cool factoid about black holes you learned from Cosmos. But it's something else entirely to make strong claims about some aspect of black holes (or vaccines, or climate change, etc) and insist you're right to the death when you haven't read any of the literature. These are the situations I was thinking of when I made the original post. Haha, true! I do have to admit I've been guilty of this (although hopefully with better language ;)). I could certainly stand to improve my public science communication skills.You're saying that people shouldn't be able to discuss that episode of Cosmos about black holes unless they've read Kip Thorne's original research.
Throwing original research into an internet pissing match simply shows that you don't know how to convince your audience - if you did, you'd explain why that original research makes your point instead of writing "RTFM n00b."
Where I'm at: The most important thing is to have a firm understanding of what you know about black holes, where you learned it, and how trustworthy any new information about black holes you hear is likely to be. The trick is to be able to dilute Nature down to 9gag. It can be done, and the winners are the ones who are willing to do it. Be willing to do it.