Close

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 41

Thread: Science Debate

  1. #1
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    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

  2. #2
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    * 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 (creator of P H E R O S)

  4. #4
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 02-18-2007 at 05:43 PM. Reason: grammar error was annoying me
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  5. #5
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    Now this is a much more scientific attitude, reminiscent of this

    lesson:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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

  6. #6
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    Perhaps you should

    contact me privately.
    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.../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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    If others are holding back, I've not seen

    this.
    Uh, OK...but how would you have seen this if they were holding back?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Last edited by Bubba; 02-18-2007 at 02:10 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    ... 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.../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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    ... 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    .... 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    Details that could throw doubt on your

    interpretation must be given, if you know them.


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



    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    ... 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:
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    Have you read it?
    The anonymous stranger says:



    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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

  8. #8
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    ... 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
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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/sh...ad.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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    Either we have established biological facts (i.e., certainty), or

    not.
    In science, all conclusions are provisional.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.

  9. #9
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
    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).

  10. #10
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Egomania, understanding, and truth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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

  11. #11
    Administrator Bruce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    7,109
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.
    To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one's family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him.

    - Buddha


    Yoga in Eugene
    Fair Trade crafts from Peru

  12. #12
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    "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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    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.

  13. #13
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce
    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

  14. #14
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba
    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

  15. #15
    Administrator Bruce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    7,109
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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
    To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one's family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him.

    - Buddha


    Yoga in Eugene
    Fair Trade crafts from Peru

  16. #16
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    8108

    Default On a lighter note (hopefully), some quotes about science...

    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.

  17. #17
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish
    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    ... 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    ... 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    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.

  19. #19
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    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.

  20. #20
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    8334

    Default

    "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
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  22. #22
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtnjim
    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtnjim
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtnjim
    ... 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.

  23. #23
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    8334

    Default

    Thanks for the ummmm

    clarification.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  24. #24
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    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.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    8108

    Default Anonymously brilliant, anonymously stupid

    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!
    Last edited by Irish; 02-20-2007 at 12:53 PM. Reason: add title

  26. #26
    Stranger
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish
    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.

  27. #27
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    8334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    (Actually a university )
    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.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  28. #28
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtnjim
    (Actually a

    university )
    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?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  29. #29
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    364
    Rep Power
    8108

    Default Bubba's profession unmasked!!

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

  30. #30
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    8334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish
    Mtnjim, Bubba

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

    61.
    THANKS!!

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

    have missed...")
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Candidate Receptor Turns on Human Pheremone Debate
    By thirtyplus in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2007, 01:03 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2005, 05:56 AM
  3. Saddam challenges Bush to debate
    By bivonic in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-26-2003, 01:59 AM
  4. to everyone with a degree in computer science
    By druid in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-19-2002, 05:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •