Reply to James Howard

James Howard jmhoward at sprynet.com
Tue Aug 5 13:52:48 EST 1997


James Woodson wrote:

> It is my opinion that your ideas would be better bourne out by speculating
> less, forming testable, simple hypotheses, and conducting definitive
> research to address specific aspects of the "theory".  One's conclusions
> should stem from data, and not overreach the boundaries of said data.

James Howard responds:
I did not ask you how may ideas may be "bourne out," I asked your 
opinion of my theory.  In the field of subparticle physics, it is 
considered quite appropriate to work in the field of theory.  This is 
what I do.

James Woodson wrote:
> More importantly, until you have published data to support YOUR theories,
> they should not be thrown to the cyberwind and given for free to anyone
> looking for good research ideas.  First to publish (for REAL, not on the
> net) will get the credit for the theorizing.

James Howard responds:
I have data to support my theories; I present them with most every post 
that requires them.  I hold a copyright to my ideas, from which 
subordinate hypotheses are derived.  It is not "thrown to the cyberwind 
and given for free."  You will find it at my website, 
http://www.naples.net/~nfn03605.

James Woodson wrote:
> Get into a lab, be productive, and submit the written work to a respectable
> journal, not the WWW.

James Howard responds:
I have been working on this since 1979; whether you, or others, wish to 
consider me unproductive is, of course, your opinion.  I have submitted 
my work to respectable journals, co-signed by a Ph.D. and and M.D.  
Thank you for your concern, but I have a firm handle on my theory.  Now, 
I invite you to consider my theory.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list