Science Debate

[Bubba]

Perhaps you should

contact me privately.

Why?

Bob Moss once advised me "you know how it works; present it

and write it up." That is, present first, so you get feedback from peers--before--they tell you what you forgot or

didn't know.

I agree, but that in no way contradicts anything Feynman wrote. You seem to be evading

responding to my criticism, which is that you appear to be far more concerned about being right than you are about

pursuing the truth. That's a recipe for disaster, unless you are incredibly lucky.

I presented at

the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, and received nothing but validation for the entire model (circa

2000).

Congratulations, but that's not relevant. My (and Feynman's, and DST's, and Belgareth's) point

is that a scientific approach involves scrupulously informing your audience about those things you don't know, may

have wrong, etc.. For example, here's a good summary from Michael

Meredith:
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/cgi.../full/26/4/433

Best case: VNO is a

minor but not insignificant contributor to human communication. More work by independent groups is needed to confirm

the reported electrical and hormonal responses. The expression of a vomeronasal-type receptor gene in humans raises

the possibility that such genes may underlie chemosensitivity in the vomeronasal region.

Worst case: The VNO

is absent or if present is not chemosensitive nor necessarily functional in communication. The evidence for

chemosensitivity is poorly documented and has not all been subject to effective peer review. The evidence for a

communication function could be artifactual.

Opinion: The EVG constitutes evidence for a selective and

sensitive response to human-derived chemicals located in the region of the VNO. Systemic autonomic responses and

emotional changes elicited by stimulation in this region suggest some chemosensitivity, even though the anatomical

substrate is difficult to demonstrate and seems unlikely to be conventional VSNs. If we didn?t have the positive

evidence from EVG, autonomic and psychological responses, reasonable scientific judgment would assign the role of

detecting human-derived chemicals that might be involved in chemical communication to the main olfactory system.

However, ignoring the evidence for vomeronasal function because most of it comes with commercial baggage is not a

rational scientific response in the absence of evidence for error, bias or fraud...

This I like. 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.

I'm sure I could find the abstract--as they are

always published in "Chemical Senses."

I'm sure that your abstract is totally irrelevant to my criticism

of your behavior here, before a lay audience.

If others are holding back, I've not seen

this.

Uh, OK...but how would you have seen this if they were holding back?

In fact, I

usually get pre-publication copies of what's forthcoming. Once presentation occurs, "everyone" knows where the work

originated--except media reps, of course. The academics I know could care less about getting media

credit.

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.

How might a 57-page review article fit into Feynman's perspective?

Quite easily, but

it's not relevant to your bluster in this forum. Why don't you ask yourself if your review addresses Feynman's

points?

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.

You

must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it.

If you make a

theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with

it, as well as those that agree with it.

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.

Might that be enough information to allow others to judge the value of my

contribution.

It might. Did you address all those points? Even if you did, how would that be relevant to

our criticism of your unscientific behavior in this forum?

Have you read it?

No, I'm

far more interested in the primary literature. 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.

Has anyone on this Forum

read it?

Probably not, which is why it is irresponsible for you to be so certain about your position in

this forum. I'll bet that you're about 10x more circumspect in your review than you are here.

Or

should we consider only what's available directly in this Pheromone Forum, and judge from that?

No, we

should consider the data. The tiny amount of available data strongly indicate that certainty is unscientific.