Robertson and Roy-Preliminary Description

SteveGrenard said:
So Lashley then didn't know how to explain the retention of memory in rats whose cerebral cortices + more were removed...
Click to expand...
Dead wrong.
As was pointed out earlier, by ED!, he aspirated parts of the cerebral cortex. If he had aspirated the "cerebral cortex + more" they would have been ex-rats with ex-memories.
 
Posted 12-20 at 6:50 PM:

"Now let me see about Hoyt's rant. Oh yes, failed experiments are not published. Go back and read ...I said "rarely" ever published, I never ever say never. Certainy disputed procedures and drug trials are published. If someone makes a claim about a procedure or a drug and other investigators find fault with that it is certainly up to them to publish that. However, I was thinking more along the lines of novel research before such claims would be made. If a
researcher thinks he discovered a new molecule that could cure cancer and it doesn't get past Phase I, doesn't work in mice or hood rats, etc. then he is apt to consign this early research to the file drawer if not the round file. And Hoyt, I said, also didn't make it past Phase I."

----------------------------------------------

I gotta stop wasting my time on these rants. Figure out what not getting past phase I means in terms of my original post. Have a nice day. The % of failed Phase II and III studies is small, but I agree, necessary to publish. Hence rare. We obviously do not know how many failed II and III trials are not published, especially those paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Somehow they don't like to publish such stuff and since they are paying for the research, they simply ask the researchers not to publish. This is a highly contentious issue we cannot go into here but is being widely debated among people who know abut this and have a stake in it.

You are also losing site of the original purpose of this thread, the issue of discarding mediums, failed candidates and not bothering to publish anything on them. You talk about diversions. You have taken an analogy and have run it up several irrelevant (to the thread) flagpoles. Now you are on ignore here also. Join Larsen for a beer or something.
 
Jeff Corey said:

Dead wrong.
As was pointed out earlier, by ED!, he aspirated parts of the cerebral cortex. If he had aspirated the "cerebral cortex + more" they would have been ex-rats with ex-memories.
Click to expand...

I read second hand accounts where it was reported he excised and/or aspirated (removed) most of the brain which I why I was interested in any first hand accounts Ed may have.
 
SteveGrenard said:
So Lashley then didn't know how to explain the retention of memory in rats whose cerebral cortices + more were removed, leading his students such as Karl Pribam and later Bohm to postulate that the brain behaves as a holographic picture.....you can cut a tiny segment out of a holographic representation and when projected it continues to display the entire picture.


Click to expand...

I think he posited the notion of reduplication. I really don't recall since I read this stuff 25 years ago.
 
SteveGrenard said:


I read second hand accounts where it was reported he excised and/or aspirated (removed) most of the brain which I why I was interested in any first hand accounts Ed may have.
Click to expand...

Lordy, lordy no. You might be thinking of the cervaux and encephale isole preparations that were used by some french guy whose name escapes me. As I recall, and this is really a stretch, the encephale preparation was created with a mid-pontine section and the other above the cerebellum(?).

Though I did this stuff, acute preparations rather disturb me.

I recall work on decorticate rats, but dip me in honey and roll me in oats if I can remember. There were also studies on infants born without a cortex and the recovery of kids that had massive strokes that destroyed large portions of cortex.

If you have an interest I might suggest the text I used in Grad school Peter Milner's Physiological Psychology. A pretty good read, particularly if you have the basic concepts. Milner, of course, with Olds did the self stimulation work that made them sorta stars. I am sure Dr. Corey will have more up to date suggestions. I guess that I am really an historian at heart.

Hey, why are you guys not at the rally?
 
The most recent text I have is the 1998 edition of Neil Carlson's Foundations of Physiological Psychology. I don't teach the course, but a researcher with grants from Sloan-Kettering does, and very well from what I hear.
And drop the "Dr." bit. The title is only used in an academic setting.
 
Jeff Corey said:
The most recent text I have is the 1998 edition of Neil Carlson's Foundations of Physiological Psychology. I don't teach the course, but a researcher with grants from Sloan-Kettering does, and very well from what I hear.
And drop the "Dr." bit. The title is only used in an academic setting.
Click to expand...

My use of the term "Dr." is meant as a bit of theatrical formality all in good fun.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Hey Ed, you seem to have a lot of money and spare time. Here's a new field for you.
Click to expand...

Here is a true and honest response. I believe that there is nothing whatsoever there. I believe that with all the people looking at the problem, something, anything would have emerged by this time. There is nothing, there is only the reflection of human wishes writ large on a background of noise.

At some point you have to say, about any endevor, "stop, cut your losses". How long, Steve will this go on? Another 50 years? Maybe you are correct and a problem is that this field attracted dillatantes. Even so, there have been competant researchers on the case. Schwartz had the credentials and should have known what he was doing. Unfortunately he, too, got on the Woo express.

Science is littered with failed theories and dead end research. I recall a story about Lashley where he was studying whether critters learn a place or set of responses (like in a t maze). He took one side and some other guy took the reverse. The research went on for 20 years with nothing concrete. Finally the parties just agreed that it was a non question. There is more too it and Jeff could expound, I am sure. The point is that, the issue that they were examining was a cul de sac.

So it is with parapsychology. I know you scoff at my sniff test of the area but the fact remains that there is nothing. After all this time and discussion. Nothing. What is truely remarkable is that the theories outnumber the data by orders of magnitude.

5% is a magic number. There was a point where 5% of the US population did not know Regan was President, I bet the number is the same today regarding Bush. 5% of murder cases do not get closed, 5% of UFO sightings remain "unexplained". Perhaps 5% of the cases of psi are not explained. Why assume that there is something that sets everything we know on it's head in that case but not in the case of awareness of who is president? Wishful thinking and the inability of most people to deal with the somewhat ambiguous nature of human existance is the root cause. Oh, yes, money and celebrity, too.

That said, I would not spend a dime on a lost cause.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Posted 12-20 at 6:50 PM:

"Now let me see about Hoyt's rant. Oh yes, failed experiments are not published. Go back and read ...I said "rarely" ever published, I never ever say never. Certainy disputed procedures and drug trials are published. If someone makes a claim about a procedure or a drug and other investigators find fault with that it is certainly up to them to publish that. However, I was thinking more along the lines of novel research before such claims would be made. If a
researcher thinks he discovered a new molecule that could cure cancer and it doesn't get past Phase I, doesn't work in mice or hood rats, etc. then he is apt to consign this early research to the file drawer if not the round file. And Hoyt, I said, also didn't make it past Phase I."

----------------------------------------------

I gotta stop wasting my time on these rants. Figure out what not getting past phase I means in terms of my original post. Have a nice day. The % of failed Phase II and III studies is small, but I agree, necessary to publish. Hence rare. We obviously do not know how many failed II and III trials are not published, especially those paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Somehow they don't like to publish such stuff and since they are paying for the research, they simply ask the researchers not to publish. This is a highly contentious issue we cannot go into here but is being widely debated among people who know abut this and have a stake in it.

You are also losing site of the original purpose of this thread, the issue of discarding mediums, failed candidates and not bothering to publish anything on them. You talk about diversions. You have taken an analogy and have run it up several irrelevant (to the thread) flagpoles. Now you are on ignore here also. Join Larsen for a beer or something.
Click to expand...
Steve,

Yep, yep, I'm on ignore alright. You, sir, were the one who drove us down the Phase I road here, not me. You keep trying to deflect from the nonsense you said about the appropriateness of dumping studies in the file drawer. Now you complain about the course of your careening car. Go figure.

So let us get back to the issue here, Steve, now that you are done with your own deflection. How do you justify burying data on mediumship? How do you justify declaring some mediums fakes, not publishing about them? And how, Mr. Wizard, do you possibly justify this statistically?

Now we've been down that road before, Grenard. You do twenty studies, each with a significance level of .05, declare nineteen to be fake mediums and publish the twentieth. What have you got? Squat, Steve. You've got squat. You have a declaration of significance that, if the data weren't hidden, would instantly be declared specious by all reasonable observers.
 
Not studies dumped in the file drawer or round file, preliminary tests or the equivalent of pre Phase I..

And yes, if your means of selecting mediumistic ability is flawed, you will get the result you mention. Time to cull out the able bodied medium and tell the others "Dont call us, we'll call you..."

I understand why you want the losers to be part of the study. It will skewer the results to fit your hypothesis and close minded worldview. If the objective is to prove 19 out of 20 self-professed mediums are fakes or self-deluded phonies, fine. You still have a problem. Its called #20. But if you are out to find out if someone can do this, then you have to concentrate on subject#20.
 
The decay of yet another idiot Grenard claim
by Dranerg Nevets

As the curtains rise, we see Grenard, in his first soliloquy:

Grenard: "If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result."

[Exit Grenard, enter the Rational Harpies]

Rational Harpies: "But Grenard, surely we can cite for you example after example of negative scientific results being published!"

[re-enter Grenard] "I said, also didn't make it past Phase I."

Rational Harpies: "What? Where? Oh, that's right. You didn't. Please provide evidence that negative results are rarely published. Here are our citations; three culled from the first 20 of a quick search."

Grenard: "CONCLUSION: Successful study. Phase II"

Rational Harpies: "Uh, no. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical benefit was not observed. Why, oh why, Steve, must you prevaricate?"

Grenard: "These examples are phase II trials. Clearly."

Rational Harpies: "Poor, poor, Steve. He cannot acknowledge the distortion of the study results, and now he has watered down his claim from all of science to Phase I drug investigations. Poor, poor, Steve. He must have realized his first claim was utter nonsense! But, soft, what dark through yonder window breaks. It is Steve's claim. Fall back, fair claim, and decay the more as we stand with jaws agape!"

Grenard: "Not studies dumped in the file drawer or round file, preliminary tests or the equivalent of pre Phase I."

Rational Harpies: "So, Steve, your claim about science wasn't true? How surprising. So, Steve, your watered down claim about drug investigations also wasn't true? How surprising. So, Steve, now your claim about Phase I isn't true? How surprising. So now, Steve, we back way up to "pre Phase I? What is next, Steve? "

:dl:
 
The man spends all this time ranting and raving and still doesn't understand what it means to say "didn't make it past Phase I."

Oh well. You have much too much time on your hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom