Who is Ken Collins?
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Aug 4 12:28:38 EST 2002
mat wrote in message <43525ce3.0208040745.18f3c7a5 at posting.google.com>...
>> i trust, since you know how to use 'pub-med', that you've been
>> racking-your-brains trying to find something, anything, through which
>> you could put NDT's stuff to the test.
>you don't get it do you? the way in which you have approached this
>theory of yours is as to make it tautological and thus unfalsifiable.
No, you don't get-it.
NDT is not at all "tautological".
There's nothing in it that doesn't reduce to the proven experimental results.
>whatever experimental result someone presents you with you'll just
>claim in some affected paragraph of romantic whimsy that your ideas
That I've posted "[many] affected paragraph[s] of romantic whimsy": Guilty.
You, and anyone else to whom such is the determining thing, are 'excused'.
>you've already decided its the truth so therefore
>everything must be explained by it.
My confidence in the work is high. Why do you think I've worked, devotedly, for nearly 31 years? :-)
>you may as well ask me to provide
>evidence for the non-existence of god.
I see you resort to "romantic whimsy", too :-)
Nothing more than a good Neuroanatomy text is necessary to pose a challenge to NDT.
Find anything in the neural topology that isn't as it's presented, and integrated, within NDT.
If, given all that's in such a text, no one can come up with anything discordant with NDT's synthesis, then that's the whole point, isn't it?
NDT is strong. I wouldn't 'bother' folks with its stuff if it wasn't.
>In the same way, whatever
>'evidence' I show you (wars, famine) you'll just claim it as part of
NDT is 100% Neuroscience.
I'd never respond to a challenge, in the Science, with anything not in the proven experimental results.
I've been over (and over, and over) why I Acknowledge Jesus' Priority. It's simple Ethics.
>In short, you have decided a priori that any evidence is
>due to god -
The only evidence that's valid within a challenge in Science derives in the proven experimental results.
If you're confused, I Forgive you. If you're being deliberately False, then such speaks for itself, doesn't it?
>you are not open to disproof.
If it were as you say, why would I ask for Challenges from within the body of proven experimental results?
In ~31 years there's been one 'challenge'. Long ago, back in CompuServe's "Science Forum". The 'challenger' selected an article that said absolutely-nothing about anything and expected me to be able to 'say-something', one way or the other. He must've gone to a great deal of 'trouble' to find such an article. [I'll see if I can dig up the ref., and post it if I find it.]
Since then, there've been zero challenges.
So, either everyone agrees with you, or everyone agrees that NDT's solid.
I've explained that I can't 'release' until there's controverting evidence, from within the body of proven experimental results.
NDT's reification of "decussation", alone, Obligates me in that way, doesn't it?
>This is why theories such
>as yours are metaphysical and not science.
Clearly, you should take a copy of your post, stand before a mirror, and read it out loud to yourself :-)
Now, get thee to Pub-Med, get help, if you need it, in finding an article that challenges NDT's position, or, give-up' on the hurtful stuff. It's all shrug-it-off stuff.
For my part, I Apologize for Publicly acknowledging the "binding problem" thing.
And for having so much fun with the stuff of your "oscillations" post.
And for calling you "R. mat".
And whatever else there is that's 'gotten-under-your-skin".
k. p. collins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Neur-sci