F. Frank LeFever wrote:
> Mr. Sargent assumed he had caught some poseur "trying to put
> multisyllabic words together", which from his very limited perspective
> seemed "meaningless in the context of intramuscular injection". To
> someone who is NOT a newcomer to the field, the question seems quite
> legitemate. I don't know about intramuscular injection specifically,
> but certainly intravenous injection was ONE of the modes of
> administration in at least one of the studies presented at the Society
> for Neurosience meeting.
>> (Bytheway, if Mr. Sargent doubts my SFN membership and presentation of
> a paper at that meeting,
Not at all. I feel very humbled and am willing to relinquish any arrogance
I may have ostensibly put on.
> I invite him to take a look at the SFN
> website: www.sfn.org. Check out meeting program. While he is at it, he
> might take a look at SFN's journal, J. of Neuroscience and read through
> a few titles. Not likely to learn anything "concrete" from that, but
> might learn some humility).
>> Also: it may astonish the newcomer to learn tht some neuroscientists
> (indeed MANY) study neuroscience in a variety of animals with no
> immediate reference to humans whatsoever--e.g. Eric Kandel's work with
> aplysia. Yes, yes, nowadays there are the beginnings of extensions of
> some of this line of research to mammals (mice), and one can d r a w
> speculative inferences re humans, but the point is he and his
> colleagues have spent many, many years simply studying aplysia.
>> I don't know of a comparable body of work with pigs as the experimental
> animal, but nothing in principle excludes them from neuroscience...
>> Finally, I would not mock anybody's "admittedly narrow field of
> neuroscientific knowledge", and had Mr. Sargent ASKED what was the
> relevance of porcine CCK to neuroscience, I would have been happy to
> tell him (so far, I haven't mentioned the specific areas in which CCK
> is of interest). However, he arrogated to himself the right too
> lampoon something he clearly did not understand; and only when called
> on it does he admit the limits of his understanding.
Obviously, I tried to walk in and 'hold the floor' just like a confident
young lion. I have only found that indeed I am lacking in accurate
information and it is my hope that I can be accepted as 'part of the pride'
and be able to participate in discussions [or at least audit] when the
knowledge is not in short supply.
> (and even so
> seems still to think he is right)
I agree that I was not only wrong, I was egregiously wrong.
The appropriate role of a newcomer is to listen and ask. Certainly the
> newcomer can also propose ideas--but be prepared to learn that they are
> likely to be like the old joke about the two leading newspapers in the
> USSSR...
Which joke?
> Elsewhere, he admits to having pontificated on the basis of a few items
> dredged up from the web, with absolutely no way of his knowing whether
> they are valid. (i.e. his nonsense about the frontal lobes)
I wasn't aware we are swimming in fabrications and falsified
experimentation on the World Wide Web. I thought perhaps there was some
regulation agency that prevents such falsehood from inhabiting the Internet
for any length of time. Now that I have been informed that this is not the
'web way', I feel terrible that I used those bits of erroneous information
to support my evanescing opinion.
> F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
> New York Neuropsychology Group
Peter L. Sargent