IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Brain clues to attention disorder

Doktor DynaSoar targeting at OMCL.mil
Tue Jan 6 13:49:51 EST 2004


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.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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