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