Once again, your ego seems toOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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.
No, I did not. I offered his style as a truly scientific one. Again, your ego seems to beOriginally Posted by jvkohl
preventing you from seeing clearly.
No, I did not. I said that it is not relevant to my criticism of your posturing in thisOriginally Posted by jvkohl
forum.
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, because you are missing the pointOriginally Posted by jvkohl
completely.
Yes, IOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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.
Nor am I. I'm talking about your desire to be rightOriginally Posted by jvkohl
overcoming your desire to get at the truth. Do you realize that every one of your responses is consistent with that
hypothesis?
Feynman's advice applies whether one is presenting a theory, a model,Originally Posted by jvkohl
or a hypothesis.
Of course not...they are things that are supposed to come up IN YOUROriginally Posted by jvkohl
OWN HEAD, but clearly do not.
Again, you seem to be desperatelyOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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?
Feynman's adviceOriginally Posted by jvkohl
applies either way.
I wouldn't want to call it a "theoretical model," because thatOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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?
I'm not making any claims of authority, and I'm asking anyone to hold my opinions in higherOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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.
Exactly! The amount of primary literature in the field is miniscule. That's whyOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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.
Years? TheOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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.
Seeking reassurance?Originally Posted by jvkohl
Feynman's recommendations had NOTHING to do with seeking reassurance; they are about fundamental scientific modesty
and scrupulous honesty.
Are you saying that you added imaginary negative results to support the claims in yourOriginally Posted by jvkohl
review?
No, science is rarely that simple. Science is constantly surprising us, andOriginally Posted by jvkohl
models are often discarded.
In science, all conclusions are provisional.Originally Posted by jvkohl
Predictably, you're grossly misrepresenting me by quoting out of context. I wrote, "The bottomOriginally Posted by jvkohl
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.
Bookmarks