Science Debate

[Bruce]

Technically, discussion of James'

ego is "off topic," but by unanimous decision of the staff, we let it run. We don't get a enough entertainment

around here I guess.

"Authority?" nothing but an illusion maintained by the "experts" for their own

gratification. I can't believe I am seeing that word in the same sentence with "truth." Nobody knew that better

than you James, back when we first met.

I grow increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and

scientific dogma and their common antithesis, truth.

** Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by

an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Bubba, I think we all share the hope that you will hang around for a

long time.

[Bubba]

"Authority?"

nothing but an illusion maintained by the "experts" for their own gratification.

I don't know that I'd

agree with that, Bruce. Clearly, some scientists know more about certain subjects than others. I'd just point out

again that there's a simple rule: in science, EVERY appeal to authority is fallacious. Only appeals to the data

count. I'd recommend that lay people judge the integrity of experts by their level of reluctance in claiming

certainty (unless there are massive amounts of data).

I can't believe I am seeing that word in the

same sentence with "truth." Nobody knew that better than you James, back when we first met.

Also,

strictly speaking, science is only about approximating the truth. As every conclusion must be held provisionally, we

never count on getting there. No one should ever claim that science proves anything. Of course, that leaves openings

for pseudoscientists (like creationists and animal rights activists) to exploit with lay people.

I

grow increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and scientific dogma and their common antithesis,

truth.

I hope that you wouldn't judge all science by that standard. Generally, in a given field, the

amount of dogma is inversely proportional to the amount of data. The pheromone field, given the paltry amount of

data, is heavy on dogma.

Bubba, I think we all share the hope that you will hang around for a long

time.

Thanks! I feel like I've jumped into the middle of a catfight.

I'd like to emphasize that

the publications of JVK's that I've read seem very reasonable and measured to me, totally unlike many of his

comments here. For the record, I'm a practicing sensory neuroscientist, just a couple of fields away from olfaction

and pheromones. 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. Science is about pondering and

describing the infinite amount that we don't know, using an inhumanly modest standard (see the Feynman quote above)

that we scientists often have trouble maintaining.

[jvkohl]

I grow

increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and scientific dogma and their common antithesis,

truth.

** Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly

true.

The final paragraphs of my review:

ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Rarely do

sex researchers address the ongoing philosophical debate between canonical neo-Darwinism and Biblical creation.

Perhaps this is because any debate between scientific theory and religion arises from distinctly different domains

of cognitive thought. Does the acceptance of Darwin’s theory represent the glorification of Science pitted against

religion, or is it a means by which Science and religion might be integrated? Integration of Science and religion

might be achieved by recognizing that the key components of this olfactory/pheromonal model appear to be as

irreducibly complex as the basic tenets of evolution and the basic tenets of religion.
From an evolutionary

perspective, highly conserved GnRH peptide ligand/receptor signaling mechanisms are the molecular biochemical

mechanisms for sexual reproduction in all organisms. These signaling mechanisms also appear to play an integral

role in the development of sexual preferences. From a religious perspective, these signaling mechanisms dictate

that the creation of life, which begets life, also allows for the creation of diversified life through the same

mechanisms. These mechanisms allow life to recognize the difference between self and non-self and to respond to

this difference.
Perhaps the creation of diversified human life gave us the ability to recognize differences

between our sexual behavior and the sexual behavior of others. Since all life does not beget diversified life, those

who judge sexual preferences that do not seem to result in diversified life may be judging creation itself.


It is easy to understand how someone could judge a particular sexual preference, without thought. Unconscious

affects that are manifest in the development of human sexual preferences are, by their nature, a part of diversified

life that few people think about. What we think about human sexual preferences becomes less meaningful when we

realize that most of sexual behavior is not what we cognitively think it should be. Indeed, the largest contributor

to sexual preferences that are manifest in the sexual behavior of any species appears to be unconscious affect.

This also appears to be the basis for diversified life.


-------------------------------------------------------------

From its inception, I thought this Forum

was about responding to differences in pheromones: how, why, when. I am a scientific authority on that topic, and

have expressed my opinions, scientifically (with references) and unscientifically (without references). I've never

claimed any other expertise (e.g., philosophy, mathmatics, theology, or social science). And I have never claimed to

know the truth about anything. Instead I've either invited debate or participated in debate. I now think that the

Forum has changed its purpose, and that it does not lend itself either to debate or to the discovery of any

truth.

JVK
The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience and Male Sexual Preferences

[Bubba]

From its inception,

I thought this Forum was about responding to differences in pheromones: how, why, when. I am a scientific authority

on that topic, and have expressed my opinions, scientifically (with references) and unscientifically (without

references).

Sorry, JVK, but "scientifically" is completely orthogonal to "with references." You can

write something scientifically without references, and you can write something totally pseudoscientific with

hundreds of references. Please reread the superb advice from Feynman.

I've never claimed any

other expertise (e.g., philosophy, mathmatics, theology, or social science). And I have never claimed to know the

truth about anything. Instead I've either invited debate or participated in debate.

Given your behavior

here, I'm skeptical of your claim to scientific authority. You clearly know a lot about the data, but you seem to

lack a clear understanding of the scientific method. A scientific authority should say a lot more about what we

don't know than what we do know, especially in a relatively unplowed field like pheromones.

I

didn't give the title much thought,...

Then you weren't acting as a responsible scientific authority!

Even if your misleading of your audience was merely inadvertent, you still owe them an apology and

retraction.

... and simply tried to alert people to the fact that the MOS (main olfactory system)

processed pheromones.

But that wasn't all you did. You fabricated ("not VNO+AOS") and attributed your

fabrication to the paper you cited, which we both know will never be read by most of your audience. At a minimum,

that is grossly irresponsible.

Are you indicating that I somehow explicitly

implied...

What? Explicitly implied? I would never indicate such a thing, as "explicitly implied" is an

obvious oxymoron. Please shoot me if I write anything like that.

... 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?

Since all you did was cite the paper, your title was a gross misrepresentation of its

contents, because it contains no VNO data.

What title would you have used to draw attention to the

paper, when posting to the Pheromone Research section?

Simply "MOS processing of pheromones."

If I

were you and trying to inform lay people about the science involved, I would explicitly remind them that this merely

shows that the VNO is not NECESSARY to detect the subset of pheromones studied in the paper, it is not a direct test

of my pet hypothesis, which is that the VNO is nonfunctional, and the olfactory epithelium is SUFFICIENT for ALL the

observed, integrated biological responses to detection of pheromones IN HUMANS.

IOW, it's my responsibility

as a scientist to emphasize the many ways in which my conclusion might be wrong. You're supposed to be your own

worst critic.