Science Debate

[Bubba]

...It's highly unusual

for researchers to hide their work from other researchers, even briefly--as indicated by the ERCO abstract Irish

posted.

Huh? It's the norm to hold back in meeting abstracts, as they have to be submitted and often

are available to your peers (i.e., competitors) long before the meeting occurs. You don't want be scooped, because

a presentation at a meeting doesn't trump a manuscript. Credit goes to those with manuscripts, not

abstracts.

I have to say, from my perspective as a practicing scientist (we had a mutual friend in the late

Bob Moss), that you're coming off as more of a dogmatist than a scientist.


Specifically,

there has been no evidence to suggest a neural pathway for the VNO (a more recent study or two has addressed this);

and evidence of its activity has been contradictory.

The prevailing wisdom was simply that it is not

theoretically necessary to posit the VNO to exist, in order to explain a detailed pheromone effect. You can get

there with standard olfaction. So some researchers felt it was a waste of time to focus on the VNO.

That was

different from saying categorically that there is no active VNO. Last I checked I was not convinced the VNO has no

role in olfaction. Maybe the intellectual scenario has changed recently, and I'd change my mind.

Now

this is a much more scientific attitude, reminiscent of this lesson:

It is interesting, therefore, to

bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought

that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an

experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right

about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated

by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.



Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you

can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and

advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that

agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate

theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that

gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.



In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your

contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.


-Richard Feynman

[belgareth]

Bubba,

Excellent!! I

applaud your integrity as a scientist. That was what I was taught and have tried to apply to everything. It makes

you more a sceptic at times but that's a good thing too. We should be sceptical of all things, especially the claim

of "I'm right, these are the facts an that's all there is too it." All too often people don't question the facts

so go on believing the world is flat all their lives.

Hey Doc, Very correct. I'm glad you pointed it out. In

general I don't care if the VNO exists because it has no impact whatsoever on me. However, I have been following

this discussion with interest simply for the sake of knowledge. By deciding that something is a fact we stop

learning about that subject and that is always a waste.

[DrSmellThis]

* I appreciate the remarks

about science.

* As regards the practical importance of the purported pheromone, androstadienone ("A1"), it is

very interesting to read all the anecdotal, "clinical" reports of it being used to great effect by many, many forum

members.

Its "anecdotal effects" are well-documented; but the most interesting reports are the oldest ones,

when people used to experiment so heavily with it.

Remember, you guys here (Gegogi, Koolking, Belgareth, Oscar,

Bassman, Holmes, Mobley, Kipling, Irish, and all the rest of the "I'll try anything gang") are way in front of the

researchers in your practical ideas about pheromone effects, due to your extensive real life experiences. It's not

even close.

Besides, its existence as one of the most prominent substances in human male sweat along with DHEA-s

(much higher in concentration than -rone, -nol, or -none) certainly suggests an important role, theoretically. It

makes it imprudent to "bet against it", when thinking about ongoing research, IMHO.

Though to me, I wonder how

necessary it is to supplement the stuff, since we all have quite a bit of it on us already, presumably. I'm not

saying more isn't better, just that I wonder if it's crucial.

What I can't figure out is why it can be

depressing to men when supplemented. I'd still wear it if it didn't depress me. Damn!

BTW, are we sure the one

sold here the exact same molecule that is on our skin in such high concentrations?

Maybe archetypal HEC can

answer that one??

[DrSmellThis]

Bubba,



Excellent!! I applaud your integrity as a scientist. That was what I was taught and have tried to apply to

everything. It makes you more a sceptic at times but that's a good thing too. We should be sceptical of all things,

especially the claim of "I'm right, these are the facts an that's all there is too it." All too often people

don't question the facts so go on believing the world is flat all their lives.

Hey Doc, Very correct. I'm glad

you pointed it out. In general I don't care if the VNO exists because it has no impact whatsoever on me. However, I

have been following this discussion with interest simply for the sake of knowledge. By deciding that something is a

fact we stop learning about that subject and that is always a waste.Thanks, Sir Belgareth.

I tried at

first not to make these comments, but I couldn't resist digressing for a moment; I was so suprised to see someone

like Bubba enter the discussion.

I have often wished some good scientists, people who thought like good

scientists in general (say, with a grounding in, and respect for, philosophy of science; and/or lots of research

experience), would happen by the forum during some of these discussions to try to keep things more scientific,

intellectually rigorous (independent of how many facts someone knows), and academic.

Now one apparently has,

Bubba, and it is quite refreshing. Otherwise it's like street fighting or war (with espionage, etc.) compared to

boxing or sports, without any "gentlemen's (gentlewoman's) rules".

Scientific thinking is a lovely, fun thing;

even applying to the rest of your life. It makes us skeptics without making us cynics, and even keeps us

humble.

I don't care whether there's an active VNO either. I just enjoy thinking about human science the best

I can, and taking whatever that gives me. Self-respecting scientists care about the scientific methods, honesty; and

satiating their curiosity, and lust for learning; not advancing an agenda. If you learn the discipline of thinking,

you can usually tell a good scientist by the way they talk, IMO, because it reflects their discipline of thought. It

has nothing to do with showing how much you know, or being "technical", for instance. That's trivial pursuit, not

science.

Regarding Bubba's point, a good scientist always wants to have way more criticisms of his or her own

stuff in the back of their head than anyone else could think up. That's first or second year grad school stuff,

right Bubba? You truly appreciate constructive criticisms, because, that could be a paragraph in your next paper, or

a clue to a follow up study. It's all good ...science. Ego agendas are just like a brain virus to a scientist,

rendering one mentally ill without insight into one's condition.

Now, with that digression, mods permitting of

course, back to topic.

[jvkohl]

I have to say,

from my perspective as a practicing scientist (we had a mutual friend in the late Bob Moss), that you're coming off

as more of a dogmatist than a scientist.

Perhaps you should contact me privately. Bob Moss once

advised me "you know how it works; present it and write it up." That is, present first, so you get feedback from

peers--before--they tell you what you forgot or didn't know. I presented at the Association for Chemoreception

Sciences, and received nothing but validation for the entire model (circa 2000). I'm sure I could find the

abstract--as they are always published in "Chemical Senses." If others are holding back, I've not seen this. In

fact, I usually get pre-publication copies of what's forthcoming. Once presentation occurs, "everyone" knows where

the work originated--except media reps, of course. The academics I know could care less about getting media credit.





Now this is a much more scientific attitude, reminiscent of this

lesson:



In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help

others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular

direction or another.[/I]
-Richard Feynman

How might a 57-page review article fit into Feynman's

perspective? Might that be enough information to allow others to judge the value of my contribution. Have you read

it? Has anyone on this Forum read it? Or should we consider only what's available directly in this Pheromone Forum,

and judge from that?

JVK
The Scent of Eros

[Bubba]

Perhaps you should

contact me privately.
Why?

Bob Moss once advised me "you know how it works; present it

and write it up." That is, present first, so you get feedback from peers--before--they tell you what you forgot or

didn't know.
I agree, but that in no way contradicts anything Feynman wrote. You seem to be evading

responding to my criticism, which is that you appear to be far more concerned about being right than you are about

pursuing the truth. That's a recipe for disaster, unless you are incredibly lucky.

I presented at

the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, and received nothing but validation for the entire model (circa

2000).
Congratulations, but that's not relevant. My (and Feynman's, and DST's, and Belgareth's) point

is that a scientific approach involves scrupulously informing your audience about those things you don't know, may

have wrong, etc.. For example, here's a good summary from Michael

Meredith:
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/4/433


Best case: VNO is a

minor but not insignificant contributor to human communication. More work by independent groups is needed to confirm

the reported electrical and hormonal responses. The expression of a vomeronasal-type receptor gene in humans raises

the possibility that such genes may underlie chemosensitivity in the vomeronasal region.

Worst case: The VNO

is absent or if present is not chemosensitive nor necessarily functional in communication. The evidence for

chemosensitivity is poorly documented and has not all been subject to effective peer review. The evidence for a

communication function could be artifactual.

Opinion: The EVG constitutes evidence for a selective and

sensitive response to human-derived chemicals located in the region of the VNO. Systemic autonomic responses and

emotional changes elicited by stimulation in this region suggest some chemosensitivity, even though the anatomical

substrate is difficult to demonstrate and seems unlikely to be conventional VSNs. If we didn?t have the positive

evidence from EVG, autonomic and psychological responses, reasonable scientific judgment would assign the role of

detecting human-derived chemicals that might be involved in chemical communication to the main olfactory system.

However, ignoring the evidence for vomeronasal function because most of it comes with commercial baggage is not a

rational scientific response in the absence of evidence for error, bias or fraud...

This I like. He

provides the range of hypotheses that are compatible with the existing data, and only after that does he offer his

own opinion, clearly labeling it as opinion.


I'm sure I could find the abstract--as they are

always published in "Chemical Senses."
I'm sure that your abstract is totally irrelevant to my criticism

of your behavior here, before a lay audience.

If others are holding back, I've not seen

this.
Uh, OK...but how would you have seen this if they were holding back?

In fact, I

usually get pre-publication copies of what's forthcoming. Once presentation occurs, "everyone" knows where the work

originated--except media reps, of course. The academics I know could care less about getting media

credit.
That doesn't prevent less-scrupulous scientists from trying to publish the same data you

presented at the meeting--I know, because this has happened to me at a far higher-profile meeting than yours.



How might a 57-page review article fit into Feynman's perspective?
Quite easily, but

it's not relevant to your bluster in this forum. Why don't you ask yourself if your review addresses Feynman's

points?

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.

You

must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it.

If you make a

theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with

it, as well as those that agree with it.

When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate

theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that

gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in

addition.


Might that be enough information to allow others to judge the value of my

contribution.
It might. Did you address all those points? Even if you did, how would that be relevant to

our criticism of your unscientific behavior in this forum?

Have you read it?
No, I'm

far more interested in the primary literature. The bottom line is that there are too few data in this field for

anyone--particularly an expert--to claim certainty about much of anything.

Has anyone on this Forum

read it?
Probably not, which is why it is irresponsible for you to be so certain about your position in

this forum. I'll bet that you're about 10x more circumspect in your review than you are here.

Or

should we consider only what's available directly in this Pheromone Forum, and judge from that?
No, we

should consider the data. The tiny amount of available data strongly indicate that certainty is unscientific.

[jvkohl]

... seem to be

evading responding to my criticism
... that's not relevant.
... here's a good summary from Michael

Meredith:
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/4/433

Michael Meredith

was the first to validate my model in its entirety, with the exception of my claim that pheromones activate genes

(despite Bob Moss having shown this, and assurring me that I was correct in saying it). When I told Michael of

Bob's assurance he replied: "I didn't say that you shouldn't say pheromones activate genes, just that I wouldn't

say it." During the same conference he stopped Erox's representatives Louis Monti-Block and Clive Jennings-White

from introducing any of their data into a public forum discussion about pheromones, because they did not submit

anything for presentation during this "scientific" forum, and he advised them to do so for the next one, if they

expected any better reception from the researchers who were attending.



He provides the

range of hypotheses that are compatible with the existing data, and only after that does he offer his own opinion,

clearly labeling it as opinion.

He's offerring his opinion on a single aspect of human chemical

communication, which has little (perhaps nothing) to do with a mammalian model (e.g., mine) that links human

pheromones to human behavior.


... your abstract is totally irrelevant to my criticism of your

behavior here, before a lay audience.

You indicate that Michael Meredith's 2001 review of the VNO

is relevant for a lay audience, but my 2006 abstract (and 57-page published review) is not. This indicates that you

might be biased; perhaps you've read his review; you haven't read mine.


.... how would you

have seen this if they were holding back?
In general, by being aware of what most researchers are doing.

When Savic showed differential activation in the male/female brain, her intent to study differences that varied with

sexual preferences became as immediately obvious as when her study of males (published May 2005) obviously predicted

her study of females (May 2006). Wysocki et. al. first reported via 1990 conference abstract that were trying to

find evidence of the luteinizing hormone response in women, with their first reported data published in 2003. Catch

my drift? If you want to learn, you pay attention to what your potential "teachers" are doing. None of mine were

holding back, or they would not have been my teachers.



That doesn't prevent

less-scrupulous scientists from trying to publish the same data you presented at the meeting--I know, because this

has happened to me at a far higher-profile meeting than yours.

I'm not talking about publishing bits

and pieces of data. Tis a shame this happened to you, but how could anyone know whether you just happened to be

studying the same thing as others, and they, quite simply, got ahead of you. Remember how the human genome project

advanced rapidly through researcher's mutual, albeit initially competitive, approaches? Perhaps you're living in

the past.



Why don't you ask yourself if your review addresses Feynman's

points?

Because I'm not presenting data, or a theory. I've detailed a mammalian model that either

extends to humans, or not. None of the researchers I know have ever indicated that the model does not fully extend

to the development of human sexual preferences. Feynman's points haven't ever come up in conversation, reviews, or

comments on my model. On the other hand, Nobel Laureate Richard Axel has a link from his lab's site to my domain

name. Maybe I should ask him if he thinks I have any points that need to be addressed, since we can be somewhat

assured that he understand's neuroscience.



Details that could throw doubt on your

interpretation must be given, if you know them.

I don't, and no one has suggested any.





You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to

explain it.

Okay, I've done my best; your turn--or anyone else's

next.



When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to

make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea

for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

If you

had read any of my technical publications, you would certainly know that I have a "model" not a theory. And even if

you want to call it a theoretical model, it's certainly gone beyond any theory that's incorporated. It's also

survived the VNO controversy and will survive any androstadienone controversy.



... how would

that be relevant to our criticism of your unscientific behavior in this forum?

Nothing I can say

would be relevant to anyone's criticism of my unscientific behavior. Here we have anonymous folk claiming to be

either authorities, or people whose opinions should be held in higher regard than a well-known, self-identified

(from the Forum's inception) clinical laboratory scientist who has published on the topic several times during the

past 15 years. As I've been repeatedly cautioned (and known all along), this Forum is not about science, and I know

that most people here don't much care. Yet, here I am, responding to another anonymous stranger who comments about

my unscientific behavior in a Forum that's not about science.

With regard to my recent publication and

question to you:

Have you read it?

The anonymous stranger says:




No, I'm far more interested in the primary literature.

It's a review of the

primary literature all of which is integrated into the model and extended to humans. If you want to continue getting

bits and pieces, keep focussed on the primary literature (what primary literature?). Reviews are pointless, unless

you want to save time and integrate (or not) the findings from the primary literature reviewed.





The bottom line is that there are too few data in this field for anyone--particularly an

expert--to claim certainty about much of anything.

How many years of collecting data in this field do

you think might be required for an expert to claim a high degree of certainty in this Forum; in published

peer-reviewed journals, in books, in presentations during scientific forums....? What criteria, besides seeking

constant Feynman-like reassurance, makes a good scientific basis for claim certainty? --as applied to a mammalian

model in which either pheromones influence behavior via established pathways, or not.


I'll bet

that you're about 10x more circumspect in your review than you are here.

You lose the bet (but you

will need to read the review to realize this). There is no need to be circumspect in any way when detailing a model.

Either the data being integrated fit, or not. But if you're not going to read the review, it doesn't matter, which

makes your most recent final statement somewhat ridiculous.



No, we should consider the data.

The tiny amount of available data strongly indicate that certainty is unscientific.

Either we have

established biological facts (i.e., certainty), or not. Either we have biologically based models, or not. You say

"certainty is unscientific," but even most non-biologists can be certain that the Earth is not flat. Perhaps

psychologists and philosophers cannot be certain without further study.

James V. Kohl
The Scent of Eros

[Bubba]

He's offerring his

opinion on a single aspect of human chemical communication, which has little (perhaps nothing) to do with a

mammalian model (e.g., mine) that links human pheromones to human behavior.
Once again, your ego seems to

be preventing you from grasping my point, which is that the way in which Meredith and DST expressed their opinions

(as a point within a wide range of possibilities) is the antithesis of the way you are expressing your opinion in

this forum.

You indicate that Michael Meredith's 2001 review of the VNO is relevant for a lay

audience,...
No, I did not. I offered his style as a truly scientific one. Again, your ego seems to be

preventing you from seeing clearly.

... but my 2006 abstract (and 57-page published review) is

not.
No, I did not. I said that it is not relevant to my criticism of your posturing in this

forum.

This indicates that you might be biased; perhaps you've read his review; you haven't

read mine.
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, because you are missing the point

completely.

Catch my drift? If you want to learn, you pay attention to what your potential

"teachers" are doing. None of mine were holding back, or they would not have been my teachers.
Yes, I

catch your drift. You have been embarrassed by my criticism, so you will do your utmost to pretend that I was

criticizing something completely different, so that you can avoid acknowledging it.

I'm not

talking about publishing bits and pieces of data.
Nor am I. I'm talking about your desire to be right

overcoming your desire to get at the truth. Do you realize that every one of your responses is consistent with that

hypothesis?

Because I'm not presenting data, or a theory. I've detailed a mammalian model that

either extends to humans, or not.
Feynman's advice applies whether one is presenting a theory, a model,

or a hypothesis.

None of the researchers I know have ever indicated that the model does not fully

extend to the development of human sexual preferences. Feynman's points haven't ever come up in conversation,

reviews, or comments on my model.
Of course not...they are things that are supposed to come up IN YOUR

OWN HEAD, but clearly do not.

On the other hand, Nobel Laureate Richard Axel has a link from his

lab's site to my domain name. Maybe I should ask him if he thinks I have any points that need to be addressed,

since we can be somewhat assured that he understand's neuroscience.
Again, you seem to be desperately

trying to shift attention away from your behavior in this forum, which is my issue with you (and I believe DST's

and Belgareth's as well). Or are you saying that Axel reads this forum?

If you had read any of my

technical publications, you would certainly know that I have a "model" not a theory.
Feynman's advice

applies either way.

And even if you want to call it a theoretical model, it's certainly gone

beyond any theory that's incorporated.
I wouldn't want to call it a "theoretical model," because that

would be stupid. Also, real scientists are far more certain about theories than they are about models. Are you

really that confused about such a basic distinction?

Nothing I can say would be relevant to

anyone's criticism of my unscientific behavior. Here we have anonymous folk claiming to be either authorities, or

people whose opinions should be held in higher regard than a well-known, self-identified (from the Forum's

inception) clinical laboratory scientist who has published on the topic several times during the past 15

years.
I'm not making any claims of authority, and I'm asking anyone to hold my opinions in higher

regard than yours. I would expect good scientists to follow Feynman's advice, though. Again, your attempt to assert

authority supports the hypothesis that you're more interested in being right than you are in learning the

truth.

It's a review of the primary literature all of which is integrated into the model and

extended to humans. If you want to continue getting bits and pieces, keep focussed on the primary literature (what

primary literature?).
Exactly! The amount of primary literature in the field is miniscule. That's why

certainty is foolish.

For fun, let's look at your representation of the primary literature in another forum

here:

http://www.pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17338

You had the audacity to title

this (emphasis mine) "MOS not VNO+AOS processing of pheromones," which puzzles me, because I can't find a

single datum in the paper relevant to your claim "not VNO+AOS"!

Only the olfactory epilthelium was

studied, so your clever addition of "not VNO+AOS" is in no way supported by that paper that I can see. Why

would you add it? The only reason I can see is wishful thinking.


How many years of collecting

data in this field do you think might be required for an expert to claim a high degree of certainty in this Forum;

in published peer-reviewed journals, in books, in presentations during scientific forums....?
Years? The

number of years of collecting data isn't the important quantity--it's the amount of available data. In real

science, EVERY conclusion is provisional. The more years of experience one has, the more circumspect one should be.

Again, I'm making no claims of authority. This is about the modesty required to be a successful scientist in the

absence of incredible luck, not desperate chest-beating.

What criteria, besides seeking constant

Feynman-like reassurance, makes a good scientific basis for claim certainty?
Seeking reassurance?

Feynman's recommendations had NOTHING to do with seeking reassurance; they are about fundamental scientific modesty

and scrupulous honesty.

You lose the bet (but you will need to read the review to realize

this).
Are you saying that you added imaginary negative results to support the claims in your

review?

There is no need to be circumspect in any way when detailing a model. Either the data being

integrated fit, or not.
No, science is rarely that simple. Science is constantly surprising us, and

models are often discarded.

Either we have established biological facts (i.e., certainty), or

not.
In science, all conclusions are provisional.

Either we have biologically based

models, or not. You say "certainty is unscientific," but even most non-biologists can be certain that the Earth is

not flat.
Predictably, you're grossly misrepresenting me by quoting out of context. I wrote, "The bottom

line is that there are too few data in this field for anyone--particularly an expert--to claim certainty about much

of anything," and "The tiny amount of available data strongly indicate that certainty is unscientific." Obviously,

both of these statements are predicated on a lack of data, so neither of those statements could reasonably be

construed to apply to the roundness of the earth, as we have huge amounts of data available. Was your

misrepresentation of my position careless or deliberate?

Anyway, I'm very interested in why you would title

a post about a single paper "MOS not VNO+AOS processing of pheromones" when AFAIK, none of the experiments in

that paper involved the VNO.

[Bubba]

Regarding

Bubba's point, a good scientist always wants to have way more criticisms of his or her own stuff in the back of

their head than anyone else could think up. That's first or second year grad school stuff, right

Bubba?
It should be. Only an incredible streak of luck will get you by without

it.

You truly appreciate constructive criticisms, because, that could be a paragraph in your

next paper, or a clue to a follow up study.
Or, it can help you prevent wasting months/years/decades

following your ego.

It's all good ...science. Ego agendas are just like a brain virus to a

scientist, rendering one mentally ill without insight into one's condition.
I couldn't agree more.

It's worth noting that in science, ALL appeals to authority are fallacious, and even a Nobel Laureate (Linus

Pauling) can forget this and make a wrong turn (vitamin C).

[jvkohl]

...your ego seems to be preventing you from grasping my point…
…your ego seems to be preventing

you from seeing clearly.
… it is not relevant to my criticism of your posturing in this forum.
…you are

missing the point completely.
…You have been embarrassed by my criticism,…
…. Again, you seem to be

desperately trying to shift attention away from your behavior in this forum, which is my issue with you (and I

believe DST's and Belgareth's as well).
…Again, your attempt to assert authority supports the hypothesis that

you're more interested in being right than you are in learning the truth.


I've been through

this before, both with "strangers" to the Forum and more established Forum participants, and
1) think you have

made clear (in the excerpts above) the fact that MY ego is not the problem;
2) will not waste anymore of my time

discussing authority or truth with someone who isn't even interested in an attempt to read or understand my latest

peer-reviewed journal article.



I'm very interested in why you would title a post about a

single paper "MOS not VNO+AOS processing of pheromones"

Many of my posts regarding the VNO debate

were deleted, and I was told after-the-fact to keep the topic in the Pheromone Research section. If you are

interested in comparing recent published information on the human VNO+AOS (or other) processing (since humans do not

have an AOS) of pheromones, please start a new thread there.

James V. Kohl
The Mind's Eyes: Human

Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences

[Bruce]

Technically, discussion of James'

ego is "off topic," but by unanimous decision of the staff, we let it run. We don't get a enough entertainment

around here I guess.

"Authority?" nothing but an illusion maintained by the "experts" for their own

gratification. I can't believe I am seeing that word in the same sentence with "truth." Nobody knew that better

than you James, back when we first met.

I grow increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and

scientific dogma and their common antithesis, truth.

** Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by

an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Bubba, I think we all share the hope that you will hang around for a

long time.

[Bubba]

"Authority?"

nothing but an illusion maintained by the "experts" for their own gratification.
I don't know that I'd

agree with that, Bruce. Clearly, some scientists know more about certain subjects than others. I'd just point out

again that there's a simple rule: in science, EVERY appeal to authority is fallacious. Only appeals to the data

count. I'd recommend that lay people judge the integrity of experts by their level of reluctance in claiming

certainty (unless there are massive amounts of data).

I can't believe I am seeing that word in the

same sentence with "truth." Nobody knew that better than you James, back when we first met.
Also,

strictly speaking, science is only about approximating the truth. As every conclusion must be held provisionally, we

never count on getting there. No one should ever claim that science proves anything. Of course, that leaves openings

for pseudoscientists (like creationists and animal rights activists) to exploit with lay people.

I

grow increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and scientific dogma and their common antithesis,

truth.
I hope that you wouldn't judge all science by that standard. Generally, in a given field, the

amount of dogma is inversely proportional to the amount of data. The pheromone field, given the paltry amount of

data, is heavy on dogma.

Bubba, I think we all share the hope that you will hang around for a long

time.
Thanks! I feel like I've jumped into the middle of a catfight.

I'd like to emphasize that

the publications of JVK's that I've read seem very reasonable and measured to me, totally unlike many of his

comments here. For the record, I'm a practicing sensory neuroscientist, just a couple of fields away from olfaction

and pheromones. I just get torqued when scientists who should know better play the authority card with lay people,

especially when they cite a paper and claim something is in it that really isn't. Science is about pondering and

describing the infinite amount that we don't know, using an inhumanly modest standard (see the Feynman quote above)

that we scientists often have trouble maintaining.

[jvkohl]

I grow

increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and scientific dogma and their common antithesis,

truth.

** Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly

true.


The final paragraphs of my review:

ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Rarely do

sex researchers address the ongoing philosophical debate between canonical neo-Darwinism and Biblical creation.

Perhaps this is because any debate between scientific theory and religion arises from distinctly different domains

of cognitive thought. Does the acceptance of Darwin’s theory represent the glorification of Science pitted against

religion, or is it a means by which Science and religion might be integrated? Integration of Science and religion

might be achieved by recognizing that the key components of this olfactory/pheromonal model appear to be as

irreducibly complex as the basic tenets of evolution and the basic tenets of religion.
From an evolutionary

perspective, highly conserved GnRH peptide ligand/receptor signaling mechanisms are the molecular biochemical

mechanisms for sexual reproduction in all organisms. These signaling mechanisms also appear to play an integral

role in the development of sexual preferences. From a religious perspective, these signaling mechanisms dictate

that the creation of life, which begets life, also allows for the creation of diversified life through the same

mechanisms. These mechanisms allow life to recognize the difference between self and non-self and to respond to

this difference.
Perhaps the creation of diversified human life gave us the ability to recognize differences

between our sexual behavior and the sexual behavior of others. Since all life does not beget diversified life, those

who judge sexual preferences that do not seem to result in diversified life may be judging creation itself.


It is easy to understand how someone could judge a particular sexual preference, without thought. Unconscious

affects that are manifest in the development of human sexual preferences are, by their nature, a part of diversified

life that few people think about. What we think about human sexual preferences becomes less meaningful when we

realize that most of sexual behavior is not what we cognitively think it should be. Indeed, the largest contributor

to sexual preferences that are manifest in the sexual behavior of any species appears to be unconscious affect.

This also appears to be the basis for diversified life.


-------------------------------------------------------------

From its inception, I thought this Forum

was about responding to differences in pheromones: how, why, when. I am a scientific authority on that topic, and

have expressed my opinions, scientifically (with references) and unscientifically (without references). I've never

claimed any other expertise (e.g., philosophy, mathmatics, theology, or social science). And I have never claimed to

know the truth about anything. Instead I've either invited debate or participated in debate. I now think that the

Forum has changed its purpose, and that it does not lend itself either to debate or to the discovery of any

truth.

JVK
The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience and Male Sexual Preferences

[jvkohl]

Anyway, I'm very

interested in why you would title a post about a single paper "MOS not VNO+AOS processing of pheromones" when

AFAIK, none of the experiments in that paper involved the VNO.



I just get torqued

when scientists who should know better play the authority card with lay people, especially when they cite a paper

and claim something is in it that really isn't.

I didn't give the title much thought, and simply

tried to alert people to the fact that the MOS (main olfactory system) processed pheromones. Are you indicating

that I somehow explicitly implied that the VNO+AOS do not process pheromones: not VNO+AOS -your emphasis

added--merely because they were not addressed by the experiments in that paper? What title would you have used to

draw attention to the paper, when posting to the Pheromone Research section?

JVK
The Scent of Eros

[Bruce]

This is going to sound very strange,

but this thread has caused some sort of fundamental shift in my understanding of the word "ego." I only wish I had

more time to devote to this discussion. I used to dread these eruptions.

Bubba, you didn't jump into a cat

fight. You were drawn to us by the silent prayers of the downtrodden masses :) Every now and then someone would

try to stand up to James' "ego" and be immediately crushed by a hailstorm, often never to be heard from again. You

are the first person to successfully kick his booty in the history of this forum. That is a why you are getting

such a warm reception.

James, I don't know much about science, but I know people, and you owe this guy a big

thank you, cyber-hug or something. I won't even tell you why. It is obvious.

Peace and Love and Truth

[Irish]

ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly

one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.

MARK TWAIN:
There is

something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling

investment of fact.

KARL POPPER
There are men with bold ideas, but highly critical of their own ideas;

they try to find whether their ideas are right by trying first to find whether they are not perhaps

wrong.

THOMAS BROWNE:
No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer.



CARL SAGAN:
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're

the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must

survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.

CLAUDE BERNARD (1813-78) French

physiologist:
Those who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their ideas are not only poorly disposed

to make discoveries, but they also make very poor observations. Science increases our power in proportion as it

lowers our pride.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:
Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's

living at it.

HENRI POINCARÉ:
Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an

accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.

ARTHUR C. CLARKE:
The

First Clarke Law states, “If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost

certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong.”

JACOB BRONOWSKI:
No

science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.

VERA RUBIN:
Science progresses

best when observations force us to alter our preconceptions.

MARIE CURIE:
There are sadistic scientists

who hurry to hunt down errors instead of establishing the truth.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:
Only two things are

certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not certain about the universe.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:


Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language

comprehensible to everyone.

PIERRE PACHET, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872:
Louis Pasteur's

theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.

MAX PLANCK
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its

opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows

up that is familiar with it.

[belgareth]

ALBERT EINSTEIN:


Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm
not certain about the

universe.


Should be posted in every technical support department in the world. human stupidity works

both ways.

[Bubba]

From its inception,

I thought this Forum was about responding to differences in pheromones: how, why, when. I am a scientific authority

on that topic, and have expressed my opinions, scientifically (with references) and unscientifically (without

references).

Sorry, JVK, but "scientifically" is completely orthogonal to "with references." You can

write something scientifically without references, and you can write something totally pseudoscientific with

hundreds of references. Please reread the superb advice from Feynman.


I've never claimed any

other expertise (e.g., philosophy, mathmatics, theology, or social science). And I have never claimed to know the

truth about anything. Instead I've either invited debate or participated in debate.
Given your behavior

here, I'm skeptical of your claim to scientific authority. You clearly know a lot about the data, but you seem to

lack a clear understanding of the scientific method. A scientific authority should say a lot more about what we

don't know than what we do know, especially in a relatively unplowed field like pheromones.

I

didn't give the title much thought,...
Then you weren't acting as a responsible scientific authority!

Even if your misleading of your audience was merely inadvertent, you still owe them an apology and

retraction.

... and simply tried to alert people to the fact that the MOS (main olfactory system)

processed pheromones.
But that wasn't all you did. You fabricated ("not VNO+AOS") and attributed your

fabrication to the paper you cited, which we both know will never be read by most of your audience. At a minimum,

that is grossly irresponsible.

Are you indicating that I somehow explicitly

implied...
What? Explicitly implied? I would never indicate such a thing, as "explicitly implied" is an

obvious oxymoron. Please shoot me if I write anything like that.

... that the VNO+AOS do not

process pheromones: not VNO+AOS -your emphasis added--merely because they were not addressed by the experiments in

that paper?
Since all you did was cite the paper, your title was a gross misrepresentation of its

contents, because it contains no VNO data.

What title would you have used to draw attention to the

paper, when posting to the Pheromone Research section?
Simply "MOS processing of pheromones."

If I

were you and trying to inform lay people about the science involved, I would explicitly remind them that this merely

shows that the VNO is not NECESSARY to detect the subset of pheromones studied in the paper, it is not a direct test

of my pet hypothesis, which is that the VNO is nonfunctional, and the olfactory epithelium is SUFFICIENT for ALL the

observed, integrated biological responses to detection of pheromones IN HUMANS.

IOW, it's my responsibility

as a scientist to emphasize the many ways in which my conclusion might be wrong. You're supposed to be your own

worst critic.

[Bubba]

Should be posted

in every technical support department in the world.

I agree. Those who are intimidated by the label

"scientist" should realize that they routinely encounter people who do just as much, or more, science than many who

call themselves scientists: people like tech support agents (although sometimes their scientific method is highly

scripted and therefore boring) and mechanics.

Science is a way of thinking, not a collection of facts.

Unfortunately, most middle-age people in the US were misinformed about this in school, and many of us are working to

change science education to emphasize process. Kids make the best scientists.

[belgareth]

My dad did nuclear research and

my education is all science. It amazes me what passes for science in our schools and the community as a whole. A

healthy scepticism, while a good thing from my perspective, doesn't make you all that popular when you refuse to

jump on the various public bandwagons and keep asking for proof of claims.

(Computer) Technical support can be

fun because the goal is to figure out a riddle and find solutions. It can also be the most frustrating businesss in

the world.

[Mtnjim]

"Bubba", with all due respect, you

suddenly show up and start claiming "scientific authority". Perhaps I may have missed where you explain exactly who

you are and established grounds to claim any authority, and if I did, please point me to it. Until I see some

evidence of your accomplishments, I must presume you to be some anonymous poster on some internet forum who is

simply restating things he/she may have heard someplace.

By the way:welcome:

[Bubba]

"Bubba", with all

due respect, you suddenly show up and start claiming "scientific authority".
Sorry, Jim, but I haven't.

If I wanted to claim authority, I sure wouldn't be using the name Bubba.

Perhaps I may have missed

where you explain exactly who you are and established grounds to claim any authority,
You seem to have

missed that on JVK's misrepresentation of the paper, the paper itself is the authority. Did it include any VNO data

or not?

... and if I did, please point me to it. Until I see some evidence of your accomplishments,

I must presume you to be some anonymous poster on some internet forum who is simply restating things he/she may have

heard someplace.
Presume away. You seem to have missed the important point that in science, ALL appeals

to authority are bogus.

[Mtnjim]

Thanks for the ummmm

clarification.:blink:

[belgareth]

All of us are entitled to our

anninomity on the forum. We assume a whole bunch of things:

I own a computer company in Texas

You are an IT

worker for the government

JVK is a medical researcher

DST is a psychologist

and a host of others. Since

we mostly don't reveal our identities we have to decide to either take people at face value or not. I normally do

until somebody proves otherwise, it saves time. The old saying about walks like a duck... Until it starts to bark

I'm going to assume it is a duck.

[Irish]

BTW, although Mr./Ms. Bubba is clearly pointing us away from appeals to scientific authority, he/she

did give us some info about personal background:

"... For the record, I'm a practicing sensory

neuroscientist, just a couple of fields away from olfaction and pheromones."

The rule rather than the

exception on this forum has always been anonymous postings. I like that because:

* It encourages open

discussion about subject matter that many would perceive to be creepy and manipulative

* It encourages posts

that must stand or fall on their own ideas, without regard to who has the biggest PhD or whatever

Of course

posters are allowed to give their backgraound, claims to authority, or whatever else they want to put out there. And

people are also allowed to give that info whatever credence they feel it deserves (it's being open, it shows

expertise, it's a shameless attempt to shout down those less "qualified", it's a blatant commercial hijacking of

an opinion forum, or whatever).

I can see why some think background and authority are necessary to having a

worthy opinion here, but even more so I appreciate reading anonymous posts and evaluating them on their own

standalone merits. Personally I don't care what Mr./Ms. Bubba's credentials may be - I'm just glad he/she is

posting!

[Bubba]

HereÕs my (flawed)

VNO experiment Ð see if folks whoÕve had rhinoplasty respond to androstadienone in the now scientifically-accepted

manner. Since a nose job often obliterates the VNO, you should have many androstadienone-immune women to check it

out on, if the VNO is indeed the conduit.

Good experiment. I'm not sure whether other, less cosmetic

surgeries to the nose (like deviated septum repair) also obliterate the VNO, but they'd be useful either

way:

1) If they don't obliterate the VNO, they'd be good controls; and
2) If they do, they'd be a

better population to choose from, as I think there would be less self-selection bias than there would be in those

who chose cosmetic surgery.

In general, it's tough to look at the effects of surgeries in people, as it is

usually unethical to do mock surgeries on the controls, as we do with animals.

[Mtnjim]

All of us are

entitled to our anninomity on the forum. We assume a whole bunch of things:

I own a computer company in Texas



You are an IT worker for the government
(Actually a university:D )
But that's beside the point. I

wasn't asking for his full name, address, and license number, an "I'm a medical/biochemist/chemical researcher

for a major university/hospital/manufacturer blah blah blah" would have been sufficient to indicate he's not some

pimply faced 14 year old in his mom's basement who just likes to argue. Heck, you know me, I don't get into brawls

with people here, but I do like to know the value of what's being posted.

[belgareth]

(Actually a

university:D )
But that's beside the point. I wasn't asking for his full name, address, and license number, an

"I'm a medical/biochemist/chemical researcher for a major university/hospital/manufacturer blah blah blah" would

have been sufficient to indicate he's not some pimply faced 14 year old in his mom's basement who just likes to

argue. Heck, you know me, I don't get into brawls with people here, but I do like to know the value of what's

being posted.
Ok, maybe I am missing something then. I thought he did say what he does. Perhaps my age and

increasing senility contributed to that?

[Irish]

Mtnjim, Bubba mentioned professional background - see post# 48. Not that I think it matters - post # 61.

[Mtnjim]

Mtnjim, Bubba

mentioned professional background - see post# 48. Not that I think it matters - post #

61.

THANKS!!:box:

I missed that. Answers my question.
:whip:(As I said in my original question "I may

have missed...")

[DrSmellThis]

Good experiment.

I'm not sure whether other, less cosmetic surgeries to the nose (like deviated septum repair) also obliterate the

VNO, but they'd be useful either way:

1) If they don't obliterate the VNO, they'd be good controls; and
2)

If they do, they'd be a better population to choose from, as I think there would be less self-selection bias than

there would be in those who chose cosmetic surgery.

In general, it's tough to look at the effects of surgeries

in people, as it is usually unethical to do mock surgeries on the controls, as we do with animals.Bubba is

the type of person I've interacted with many times over the years in university settings. He is an experienced

researcher.

How do I know? Because I can tell from a paragraph of him speaking. Without a doubt. He wouldn't

have said "self-selection bias" in the middle of a normal, boring sentence otherwise, for example. That's normal,

everyday scientific conversation to me. That's my language. He talks with others how I am used to talking with

other scientists. He is the first one I can remember. Specifically, he is talking the language of someone who

designs, conducts and writes up studies. He understands research from the inside-out.

JVK is literally not

anywhere remotely close to that kind of person with that expertise, education, or training. Nothing wrong with that

whatsoever, but that's the way it is. I admire anyone who is able to participate in a field being essentially self

taught, but it ain't the same thing.

I've met lots of Bubbas. Bubba is the kind of guy, like a prof, that

would have kicked my butt in grad school a thousand times if I had tried to pass BS off as science, scientific

thinking, or scientific talking. So I learned to be scientific over the ten years I was in grad school. Bubba

recognized that from one paragraph as well.

I'd like to assume everybody that talks science, especially if they

are claiming authority, would act like that. No biggie.

JVK comes across as something very, very different; not

a scientist in the way I and most others would define it. He knows a lot of current facts about pheromones, maybe

more than anybody, and has written a number of good literature reviews; some with theoretical importance; but is a

scientific technician (associates level lab tech by education and training, IIRC), who compensates in Napoleanic

fashion with extreme, escalating appeals to ego and authority. If he could just learn to be who he is, he'd be

fine. But that won't happen any day soon, sad to predict, because there is no insight into his own condition. The

ego gets even bigger when threatened.

From day one, I was more than willing to give credit where due to JVK, and

a lot is due. The problem is he oversteps his bounds so often, in so many areas, (e.g., pontificating about human

psychology, a field he has no training in whatsoever, while playing the expert card) you end up spending most of

your time dealing with hollow arrogance. (I was the only one trying to confront this, along with juggling my other

roles.)

It ends up feeling like disrespect/contempt to the forum and its members, though I assume no malicious

intent. Forum members deserve the same care with our words as conference participants, university scientists, or

anyone else. If you're that good, you should be able to be that good here. I've never seen a good scientist have

any trouble with it, maybe because they spend so much time teaching.

I've never been able to speak completely

frankly in these situations because of my historic "helping person" (if you will) role here, (the mods are in a

similar situation) and as a person selling a product. I never wanted to come across as having conflicting roles, as

having another agenda. Plus, I was the only one here with a backround in research methods/psychology (still am, as

far as psych), and there was no one to triangulate off of. It's just your word against someone else's -- and if

the other person is willing to pull out all the stops, say things to mess with people, never admit they're wrong,

and disrespect rules of scientific conversation, you can only do so much.

Even if you have them where you want

them, which I did with JVK many times, they just change the rules of the conversation.

That happened with this

conversation a lot too, the attentive reader will notice. Even when JVK is "dead to rights" wrong for all the

universe to see, he simply changes the rules; says something obscure, technical and confusing; diverts the topic;

and plays the authority card; among other sophisticated tricks (e.g., "I'm right because a Nobel winner links to my

web page"; "how dare you presume your opinion is as important as mine", etc.).

But one thing that impresses me

about Bubba is his ability to get to the meat of it in one sentence. I think that is from dealing with it every day,

and probably from teaching it to grad students every day, etc. You get good at disposing of pseudoscientific jargon

(like the redundant, "cognitive thought" from JVK's paper extract above) very quickly, for example. My hat is off

to him.

An outside person who is clearly a competent scientist coming in to add another person to the mix was

always the thing we needed here. Now you have more than one scientific person in the conversation, and the less

scientific person can't get away with creating an alternate reality, becoming a bully, and relying on enough

impressionable newbies and laypeople in the audience to buy the unscientifc fertilizer. The ethics of it are sad,

frankly, but that's why they teach you scientific ethics in grad school.

[jvkohl]

You get good at

disposing of pseudoscientific jargon (like the redundant, "cognitive thought" from JVK's paper extract above) very

quickly, for example. My hat is off to him.

I use "cognitive" and "conscious" to emphasize the

difference between what we think is happening (i.e., our thoughts) compared to the unconscious behavioral affects

that occur in response to the effect of pheromones on hormones. I do this throughout the article. Therefore, you

explicitly imply (I'm using explicitly for emphasis) that its reviewers and at least one editor either do not

recognize the (i.e., your) need to dispose of pseudoscientific jargon, or that they recognize the (i.e., my) need

for emphasis. Which do you think is correct? Maybe you should read the article before deciding. Or perhaps, maybe

they just didn't want to mention "pseudoscientific jargon" for fear of bruising my ego.





An outside person who is clearly a competent scientist coming in to add another person to the mix was always the

thing we needed here.

Given this ongoing need, why does it appear that he has only posted

approximately 10 times since joining in May, 2006? And why so much activity in this thread? For all we know he could

be a majority stock holder in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new

fertilizer for the androstadienone and VNO approach.



Now you have more than one

scientific person in the conversation, and the less scientific person can't get away with creating an alternate

reality, becoming a bully, and relying on enough impressionable newbies and laypeople in the audience to buy the

unscientifc fertilizer.

Now we also have changed this thread from androstadienone and the VNO to JVK

and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is unscientific fertilizer.



The

ethics of it are sad, frankly, but that's why they teach you scientific ethics in grad school.

This

Forum has never been about scientific ethics; it's a marketing tool. You've used it to promote your product, I've

used it to promote mine. It is now being used to discredit me by changing the focus from putative human pheromones,

which you agree I know a lot about, to my ego--which you and others seem to think you know about--in this thread.

So, if I don't spend much more time responding to posts like this, I hope you understand

why.

JVK
author/creator: The Scent of Eros

[belgareth]

Now that everybody has had a

chance to blow off at each other, I think it is time we ended this discussion.

[DrSmellThis]

I use

"cognitive" and "conscious" to emphasize the difference between what we think is happening (i.e., our thoughts)

compared to the unconscious behavioral affects that occur in response to the effect of pheromones on hormones.

"Cognition" and "thought" are well known in psychology and psychiatry as synonyms. So it redundant to say

"cognitive thinking", unless you redefine the terms to mean something idiosyncratic to your paper, and clarify that

in your paper. Did you do that?

Plus, now you do seem to be using them as synonyms.

Frankly, now that you

mention it, the term, "unconscious behavioral affects" doesn't make sense either.

Do you instead mean

"effects", as in "cause and effect", or do you mean the noun "affect", which is a basic psychological term that

means the visible manifestation of emotion (which seemingly has little to do with your term)?

Either way would

be an inppropriate usage of the term. You appear to be mixing these basic psychological terms up, a common mistake

among beginning psychology students.
I do this throughout the article. Therefore, you explicitly

imply (I'm using explicitly for emphasis) that its reviewers and at least one editor either do not recognize the

(i.e., your) need to dispose of pseudoscientific jargon, or that they recognize the (i.e., my) need for emphasis.

Which do you think is correct? This is another appeal to authority. The fact that something gets published

does not make it beyond criticism.
Maybe you should read the article before deciding. You

posted the excerpt here. I read your posting and the explanation of your posting, which didn't change anything.

It's possible your article would fix something you said, by redefining common psychological terms to mean something

else. But given your explanation, I'm not optimistic or interested enough to read your whole article at this time

for that purpose, frankly. Most readers go by what you post here. If you want to clarify the terms you use here, out

of respect for readers; feel free.

Part of what people are criticising is this implication that readers have the

obligation to read the ongoing body of your work, rather than expect you to take responsibility for what you post

here.
Given this ongoing need, why does it appear that he has only posted approximately 10 times since

joining in May, 2006? And why so much activity in this thread? For all we know he could be a majority stock holder

in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new fertilizer for the androstadienone

and VNO approach.
I'll let Bubba respond to that one. But I don't see Bubba trumpeting the VNO at all.

He is making measured statements about various possibilities regarding its existence/function, that acknowledge

multiple sides of the issue. Nowhere did he assert the VNO was clearly active. That makes your suspicion of him

having financial motives or whatever uncompelling.

Instead of responding to his statements directly, you talk

about suspecting him of a kind of subterfuge. There you go again diverting the issue.
Now we also have

changed this thread from androstadienone and the VNO to JVK and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is

unscientific fertilizer. I would also prefer to keep threads on topic; but would suggest that your behavior

might have something to do with threads drifting repeatedly over the years, across any number of posters, into

discussions of your ego. You said you had been through this same thing many times, with both experienced and new

posters. I wonder why? If it happens repeatedly, could you have anything to do with it?

This Forum

has never been about scientific ethics; it's a marketing tool. You've used it to promote your product, I've used

it to promote mine. If you were interested in forum participants primarily as marketing targets (which I'm

not suggesting); that might help explain any feelings of disrespect readers might feel if they are trying to have a

serious discussion; or a discussion about the science. That is for you to say.

I'd hope all of us could

separate our marketing from our scientific discussion.

If you are talking about science while representing

yourself as a scientist, no matter the forum, professional ethics would and should apply. They apply to me, too.


It is now being used to discredit me by changing the focus from putative human pheromones, which you

agree I know a lot about, to my ego--which you and others seem to think you know about--in this thread.Some

of us are criticising consistent behavior in the forum, which is different from "trying to discredit" you. You keep

shifting the focus elsewhere, whether onto your outside work, being victimized, or whatever.

[DrSmellThis]

Sorry, Belgareth, I hadn't

noticed your last post before writing mine. I won't post again.

[belgareth]

Sorry,

Belgareth, I hadn't noticed your last post before writing mine. I won't post again.
It wasn't an order.

It was a suggestion because this thread really isn't getting us anywhere. Its a non-productive waste of time, in my

opinion. So long as it stays here in Open discussion it doesn't matter all that much, though.

[DrSmellThis]

Still, I agree.

[Bruce]

Let's leave it.

James, suffice

it to say, you've obviously made a lot of enemies over the years with your schoolyard bullying. But, you've

obviously made a lot of great contributions too. Bubba is obviously the superior scientist. I think we could all

learn a lot about real science under his tutelage.

As the admin here, I have been very lax. My *intention* at

this point is to provide more security for the layman-ship around here. If there is such a thing as an "authority"

they are certainly welcome to contribute in a positive way, but may not use their perceived superiority as license

to browbeat the general membership, and I hope the moderators will back me up here.

Peace Love Truth

(preferably in that order)
Bruce

[Bubba]

But one thing

that impresses me about Bubba is his ability to get to the meat of it in one sentence.

Gosh, if you

keep talking like that, "Bubba" is going to be a perfect description of the size and shape of my head.

[Bubba]

For all we know he

could be a majority stock holder in Erox/Human Pheromone Sciences who is waiting for the stock to rebound with new

fertilizer for the androstadienone and VNO approach.
I'm not. As an academic, all I've got is my

403(b) retirement account with TIAA-CREF.

Now we also have changed this thread from androstadienone

and the VNO to JVK and his ego, and you appear to have decided what is unscientific fertilizer.
When you

argue from authority, you are responsible for that change.

[DrSmellThis]

Gosh, if you keep

talking like that, "Bubba" is going to be a perfect description of the size and shape of my head.My

intention was not so much to give you a compliment, but to accurately describe how you come across: As a

professional researcher, who has been around the block, understands the scientific method, and does science every

day. I should hope you could own up to all that by this time without getting a big head. ;)

That said, we

certainly appreciate your participation.

If you say something I disagree with (or just have something to add

to), I won't hesitate to point it out. But you can be sure I'll watch my scientific "P's and Q's" if I do. :)

The nice thing is that such care would not be wasted.