Formal Challenge

NMF nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca
Sat Feb 7 20:57:41 EST 2004


Well I guess the most appropriate would be the infamous saying, "Truth.  You
can't handle the truth!"   See I have nothing to loose if your findings are
right and were published.  (I have everything to gain).  However, some
people who might have adopted a certain a model of thinking now would have
wasted a life time.  (That's a hard thing for anybody to do, especially if
they had invested 50 plus years of their lives to it).

See more people should be like Niels Bohr.  At least from what I know he was
pretty open-minded when his theory turned out wrong.  And from what I read
it seemed to me that he never could really forgive himself for making the
mistake (which isn't a real big mistake if you considered what he had
available at the time to make his mathematical predictions).

Unfortunately Ken some people will remain to ignorant to whatever truth. It
really boils down to the nature of belief.  People never really question the
basic foundations of why they believe what they believe.  This is most aptly
shown in the case of religion but it is all this case of the dogmas of
science.  People never believed in this existence of back-propagating action
potentials or that dendritic action potentials (i.e. sodium and calcium
spikes).  Now they do.  People did not believe that neurons can be
regenerated do to the original Cajalian dogmas (That were misinterpreted).
Now neurogenesis is a routinely observed phenomena.  Everybody knows about
Papez and the infamous Papez circuit of emotion.  Read what the university
of Chicago did to him after he published his findings.  Paul MacLean has
written about it.  Basically when they moved part of the medical  building
they didn't give have room for him and stuck him in an extremely small
downstairs room that was miles away from the university.  When he was met by
Paul MacLean many years later, he was still all excited and enthusiastic
about the brain despite a lot of the criticism he encountered. It's actually
quite sad. His findings were met with the biggest scrutiny at that time.
Now every first year psychology students knows about Papez circuit.

Ken you are probably thirty years ahead of how everybody else analyses
neuronal phenomena.   As a result you are met with antagonism.   You know
what it isn't all that surprising.  People often employ univariate
statistics to assess a multivariate problem.  That's why I so impressed by
your approach and why I ask to see your data.  Not because I'm accusing you
that your theories are BS. Unless you are reporting significant difference
at a p=0.95 level, then I might a have a little bit of problem with your
analysis (a joke... by the way).   But because these are the approaches that
must be done for analyses regarding complex behavior.     I may not
understand all the theory that you advocate, mainly b/c a lot of it is
derived as extension of previous written ideas, but i try,  sometimes with
frustration but i try.

I bet you the real reason why a lot of the antagonism occurs (especially
during the peer-review process) is because you may emphasis the
global-aspects of the theory.  The phenomena work at all of levels.  From
the cellular to macroscopic behavioral domains.  Don't change that.
Looking at the big picture is often met with a lot criticism, especially b/c
many researchers are so concerned with reductionist approaches.




"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6KfVb.16845$GO6.9485 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:aiXUb.12729$ZN1.680808 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > HAHAHA I agree.  Good luck on pursuing
> > your theories.  (honestly).  And keep
> > on trying to get your manuscript published.
> > Do NOT give up on that.
>
> I expect that I'll not give-up.
>
> I expect I'll just Die, without anything
> changing between 'now' and then.
>
> The 'stock market': folks've been
> ripping-off this or that in the work
> I've done, in efforts to seek 'profits'.
>
> Because of all that's involved, such
> Theft [the Rights of a Citizen's with
> respect to his labors are Guaranteed
> by The Constitution of The United
> States of America - so the Offense
> is Federal], also constitutes Murder
> on a massive scale.
>
> It's why I can't 'pass gas' without
> 'upsetting' the 'stock market'.
>
> In the 'present' instance, the 'profit'-
> seekers breathed a 'sigh of relief'
> because they were 'afraid' that folks
> were about to 'open-the-door' to
> NDT's stuff [perhaps the Templeton
> Award which will be announced
> next month], but because I reacted
> 'strongly' when I saw you coming,
> on False 'premises', the 'stock mar-
> ket' 'decided' that I'd blown my
> chances.
>
> With respect to the False 'premises' -
> your request for 'data' - everyone
> who's been following my discussions
> knows that it's 'impossible' for me to
> respond to such a query in any way
> that any casual observer can follow
> [when my response is other than in-
> person, as is the case in a NG dis-
> cussion]. The reason for this 'impos-
> sibility' is Simple. I read, and synth-
> esized =all= the data that I could get
> my hands on, which means that =each=
> thing in NDT is in-there because of
> =thousands= of datasets.
>
> If I were to begin to discuss any one
> thing in NDT, exhaustively discussing
> 'the data', no one would remain inter-
> ested beyond the first week or so.
>
> It took nine 'years' of work more
> intense than I've ever heard of anyone
> else doing. [This isn't a 'boast'. When
> I realized what was at stake, I drove
> myself as if the Survival of Humanity
> depended upon the work I was doing -
> be-cause it does.]
>
> It's why, when someone asks for 'the
> data', I only 'groan', and then do as
> I've done with respect to your 'request' -
> give folks all the Neuroscience Libraries
> in the world, from which they can select
> anything.
>
> The 'point' being that, in the case of NDT,
> 'the data' is everything there is.
>
> I've has the same Formal Challenge be-
> fore the COmmunity of Scientists for
> more than twenty years.
>
> It's 'curious' to me that no one ever
> accepts.
>
> Yet there's been this False 'premise'
> about 'the data' hanging over my head
> like the sword of Damicles.
>
> It's 'funny'.
>
> Naive folks always lend credence to
> the False 'premise'.
>
> Which is 'why' the 'stock market'
> breathed a sigh of relief yesterday.
>
> And why, when I saw you coming-on
> I expressed my Disgust with respect
> to what you were doing.
>
> It doesn't matter how I respond.
>
> 'powerful' folks are 'determined' to
> keep 'me' Imprisoned, no matter what
> 'I' do.
>
> [Oh, I 'could' 'move away from' Truth -
> Lie like a Jackass to 'save my life' -
> [which is the way the 'powerful' folks
> go about their 'living'] but everyone
> knows that I 'move toward' Truth.
> Period.]
>
> So, to me, it's all Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.
>
> Truth Is.
>
> Truth does what it does, despite what
> anyone does.
>
> And the 'powerful' folks will see that
> it's so.
>
> K. P. Collins
>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list