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

Brain clues to attention disorder

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Jan 7 04:00:58 EST 2004


<orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.0401060640.5a470cba at posting.google.com...
> "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<L5vKb.11681$6B.9665 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > <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
>
> Formulating new ideas and theories, hypothesis, are maybe the most
> respectful and difficult of operations. Nevertheless , hypothesis are
> just that, however intriquing , until tested ,proving their validity.
> If you find this position being a ridicule , then it seems you do not
> have much confidence in your "new" ideas. That could be a shame,
> certainly if your work has substance and could benefit mankind.
>
> Orkeltatte

I stopped reading in Neuroscience, about 20 years ago, because
it had become too 'painful' to continue reading - because the work
I'd done was being 'borrowed' by Professionals, without its being
Credited.

[Don't ask me to give examples. I will, but only in-private, for
folks who'll give my work a chance, in my own name. [It's a 'line'
I've drawn in an effort to maintain my own sense of 'Decency' in
the 'light' of what I've experienced.]

I've also received many examples of such from others on the Internet.

So, I 'have a chip on my shoulder'. It won't do anything about the
'borrowing', but it has kept the 'fire' lighted, within.

It's the best that I can do, given my circumstances.

"Testing"? - I only wish someone would present a Test.

Folks've just taken the work I've done, so they can get the funding
that they need to support their Families.

That's 'alright' with me, =except= that it has 'denied' the same stuff
to me.

And the 'discontinuity' inherent is hard to 'accept'.

A man has to eat, and he has a right to expect that the work he
does can earn such.

This said, Thank You for your Cordial reply.

ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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