KPC and b.n.

mat mats_trash at hotmail.com
Fri May 16 10:32:38 EST 2003


There seems to be a central paradox in Ken's claim that his work has
been plagiarized; If the work has been ripped off by scientists for
the last 32 years then, given its claimed worth, this knowledge will
have become widely disseminated amongst academics.  I shall assume
that scientists in the majority understand what they say and write
which leads to the conclusion that a large proportion of the
neuroscientific community understands Ken's work (AoK).  If this is
the case, then his task of teaching the world his theory has already
been done.  Ken might not be acknolwedged as the genius he ought, but
he claims that personal glory is not his aim.


To Ken:  If all you claim is proven by data past and present, will you
show how?  For example, this mechanism of TDE/I business.  For me at
least, of the nomenclature you have developed this is the easiest to
penetrate - I can sort of envisage what you are talking about. 
Neurophysiological records are abundant in the literature.  Will you
cite a paper that shows TD E/I minimization?  (And its not enough to
cite a paper with the addendum 'this proves AoK'  you have to show how
it does with mathematical argument)



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list