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, 

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

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net