Perfuming Basics

[jvkohl]

Its

intersting that the "hard" sciences have not learned the cross-disciplinary approach that social sciences have

engaged to their advantage. Admittedly, the social sciences have gone to some extremes, but the chemists,

biologists and physicists have a lot to learn from each other considering the obvious

interrelationships.

A cross-disciplinary approach in the "hard" sciences requires expertise across

disciplines. The language of genetics and immunology is different than the language of neuroscience. Different

languages make it more difficult to tell a cohesive story. Social scientists tell comparatively short stories with

few details of cause and effect. "Results require further study" is a common caveat. A neuroscientific approach is

more likely to establish some facts, including those that are based on what geneticists and immunologists think are

biological facts about the more obvious interrelationships extending to hormones and

behavior.

From what I've read the Alternative Medicine crowd are an exception.

However, on the cutting edge of research the stone wall seems as impenetrable as an ego steeped in peer approval. I

suppose it just feels better to be applauded than to be challenged.

The Alternative Medicine crowd

members must somehow learn that cutting edge research may not answer the questions they're asking. Otherwise they

wouldn't be looking for alternatives. Once you start looking at alternatives, you leave your peer group, and your

former peers continue to be part of a peer group that excludes you. We simply can't have peers with alternatives

that their peers haven't heard of; can we? Perhaps this is why alternatives among peers are typically unheard

of.

James V. Kohl