Science Debate

[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.