Science Debate

[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.../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/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.

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.

[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

[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