Brain clues to attention disorder

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Jan 7 04:14:08 EST 2004


"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:vuvlvvo8duvkfsf9bvj1sor923afa6gbco at 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:20:43 GMT, "k p  Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> } <orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> } news:84da9680.0401060058.4c553ea7 at posting.google.com...
> } > "John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
> } news:<3ff1764d at dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
> } > > Oh yeah, scientific journals are the wellspring of new ideas ...
> } > >
> } > > Oh yeah, let's get to the p <.05, that settles everything ... .
> } > >
> } > > My god, if were that easy to get a new idea published.
> } > > Please read some history of science.
> } > >
> } > > John H.
> } >
> } > I suppose John H has come up with a better way to scientifically
> } > validate findings to be firm and solid ( at least until someone proves
> } > them wrong)
> } > Mayby I am just an ignorant , but as far as I know we do not have a
> } > better way than the proper standarized  scientifically methods of
> } > evaluation . Please enlight me, or better still , prove me wrong!
> } >
> } > Orkeltatte
> }
> } Truly-New ideas are universally 'trashed', simply be-cause nervous
> } systems, having long experience with other-than-correlated-to-the-
> } New stuff, literally cannot think the New stuff's thought.
> }
> } Truly-New ideas are 'laughed-at'. They aren't even given any
> } consideration. They're subjected to Ridicule.
> }
> } And it's all very-Serious - because, to grasp the Newness requires
> } one to abandon the 'safety' of the old-long-since 'familiar' stuff.
> }
> } So, to the one who's done the work to wrestle Newness into
> } Being, the 'Ridicule' is as a Deadly-Weapon.
> }
> } Hell, I've been working 32+ 'years' in Neuroscience and 45+
> } 'years' in Physics, and 'because' my work is Truly-'New', I've
> } yet to receive any substantive Criticism of my work - but I have
> } received the other stuff, overflowing.
> }
> } John speaks up with respect to the general case, and what does he
> } receive from you?
> }
> } Nothing but 'Ridicule'.
> }
> } I rest my case.
> }
> } K. P. Collins
>
> The exception disproves the theory.
>
> I've had no problems getting new ideas published. Perhaps because I
> know enough about what I've done, and what everyone else has done, to
> say why mine's better in a direct comparison, using the language of
> the old and the math to prove the new.
>
> I received no ridicule. I did receive invitations to work at other
> labs, in collaboration or with a position. I accepted am NIH career
> development grant offered in large part due to my innovations.
>
> I did receive rejections and disagreements. Rather than alter my ideas
> to suit others, I confronted the arguments head on with evidence. In
> the process I discovered some journals' editorial boards were not
> equipped/experienced enough to grasp my work. No big deal. There's
> other journals, especially those with those few best people in the
> field on their editorial boards.
>
> If the few best people in the field can understand you and see that
> you can objectively show your idea to be better, they will accept it
> and all else will follow.
>
> If the few best people in the field cannot understand you, it doesn't
> matter how correct you are. Great ideas are frequently dead ends
> because that's all the farther the person will take it, and frankly,
> ideas are the easy part.

How much of the pre-existing 'state' of Knowledge did your new
stuff change?

My work changed =everything= within Neuroscience, and all of
Physics, at a fundamental 'level'.

I tried, in good faith, for more than a decade, to get a paper
published - went to meetings and conferences, wrote letters,
telephoned, etc.

Nothing I did was ever even Reviewed - never even considered.

Then I had to accept that putting aside my work in order to
pursue 'publication' was just too wasteful.

So I returned to just doing the work, and yapping about it
'incessantly', online, hoping that the work will, through that
means, communicate.

What else can I do?

I've received virtually hundreds of thousands of 'rejections.

At least I've not 'given-up'.

This said, Thank You for your thoughtful reply.

ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list