Re: [evol-psych] Re: A serious scientist would do WHAT?
- From: Graeme <graeme@...>
Thanks James for persisting in the face of criticism.
JK: You're welcome. I think persistence is typically required to bring any new perspective to the attention of those who prefer to stick with what they've always known.
I’m wondering what it would take to bring this list to the level of a conference type debate, at the level of each individual participating. I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that Robert has limited time to moderate the list, and, I’m assuming that many prior contributors are no longer inclined to contribute until the tenor of the debate permits the science of evolutionary psychology to come to the fore.
JK: I also suspect that moderation has become more difficult and time-consuming for RKS. On his psychiatry-research group, for example, he just announced: "Dear Members, there will be no more discussion of JVKs 'model'. There has been very little discussion of my model, compared to the number of personal insults others have delivered (as occurs here) without ever mentioning anything I've written in any published work. I'm at fault for responding to the insults of course, and including some of my own. My only excuse for my behavior is frustration from not being able to discuss my model. However, there's been no discussion of any alternative model, either. (So, I don't think there is one.)
Tempted as I am to buy into arguments that are more of a political or ideological nature, I realise I don’t really have the time to do so. My habit of recent times is to ignore or delete some/many posts (saving me time) where they do not address questions that can be explored or answered in a scientific manner. I suspect if each of us undertook a similar approach, those who are off topic would not be rewarded with a response. If OTOH a post is of interest, then I can read it at my leisure, or potentially discuss it with the poster off list if that is appropriate to each.
Perhaps a primary criteria for a response might be “can this question be answered using science as a tool”? if not I/we could debate our opinions off list so as not to disturb those on list?
JK: That seems like a reasonable approach to me, but one that also might involve too much moderation, and perceived inconsistencies by those who think they are presenting info that can be scientifically addressed, when they are actually simply rehashing theory and opinions, like the one where random mutations somehow cause adaptive evolution. For contrast, my contributions to psychiatry research ended in the context of what Helen Fisher said about the book I co-authored: My comment: Helen Fisher said this about The scent of eros: mysteries of odor in human sexuality (by Kohl and Francoeur 1995): “This is science at its best, with adventure, ideas, and lots of facts”
I was able to get in one additional post about 1) the implications of my model for cancer research; 2) olfactory researchers and 2004 Nobel Laureates: Richard Axel and Linda Buck; and 3) the importance of the honeybee model organism that links the epigenetic effects of food and of pheromones to the human immune system and its regulation of cell proliferation via fine-tuning of the microRNA / messenger RNA balance. No more discussion of my model on psychiatry research, means no discussion of the microRNA / messenger RNA balance in a group that might otherwise benefit from learning about how pertinent that balance is to progress in the practice of medicine by psychiatrists.
Of course the finely tuned balance is also essential to conceptualizing adaptive evolution because when the fine-tuning fails the species goes extinct. But extinction, like species survival, is non-random; it's simultaneously controlled by nutrient chemical uptake and pheromones, which presents an intellectual challenge to those who would rather explain-away adaptive evolution as if it could occur via random mutations (e.g., simultaneously: from the bottom up and top down, as occurs with nutrient chemical uptake and pheromone control).
James V. Kohl
Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
A serious scientist, like me, would distance himself self from this sort of nonsense. Will I be the last to do so? Sonny states: "I encourage you to consider removing people from the discussion group who merely repeat the same old thing they've said in the past." What's left for RKS to do but remove anyone who continues to promote theories while refusing to examine any scientifically established facts. For example: here's a two minute video representation on the facts about microRNA and neuroscientific progress that's retarded by the nonsense of evolutionary theorists and scientifically illiterate discussants who are unable to understand the basic principles of biology or levels of biological organization required for adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction as detailed in my most recent poster presentation.
Graeme: I learned more about the microRNA / messenger RNA balance that is crucial to cellular and organism homeostasis (and adaptive evolution) than I thought would ever become available in my lifetime -- at SFN 2012. Forthcoming publications seem poised to decimate the ranks of social scientists, especially those clinging to theories of adaptive evolution as the unequivocal facts become better known. I, too, would like to see the groups moderated by RKS return to their "glory days" when discussants would first consider whether they knew anything about the topic at hand before commenting about others with established expertise.