<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!
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