PA Conference abstracts

I'll certainly be interested to read some of these papers - hopefully they will be made available.
 
fls said:

Hmmm...Dr. Powell's abstract is the only one which looks remarkable. But her findings are astonishing and earth-shattering (if performed properly). And she's a doctor, right? So why are they being presented at a tiny fringe conference which won't get the attention of her colleagues, instead of being published where medical breakthroughs usually get published - one of the major medical journals, or at least one of the premier journals in her field (psychiatry?)? Admittedly, she'd have to have done a much better write-up to get it into a mainstream journal, but presumably she is capable of stepping up to the plate in that regard (if she is capable of performing the experiment properly). At the very least, the abstract should have been presented at a decent medical or neuroscience conference (again with the caveat that abstract would need to be properly written to get accepted). Parnia showed us that properly performed experiments and properly written abstracts get accepted at well-respected and highly attended medical conferences.
Click to expand...

What's this got to do with medicine?
 
electricfunk said:
I can see this as being much more relevant to science in general, physics if you have choose one discipline. Are you suggesting it is relevant to medicine because the subject is autistic?
Click to expand...
Wow. I can't see this in a physics journal at all.

I'm suggesting that its relevant to medicine because the research is a result of Dr. Powell's practice as a psychiatrist. Because the subject is austistic and it is proposed that this may be related to her autism. Because research on other novel human abilities are relevant to medicine (e.g. blindsight). Because this would have significant therapeutic implications. Because it is relevant to a thorough understanding of human physiology.

I could go on, but I don't understand what would make someone think to exclude this from medicine in the first place. Sure, I could also make a case for its publication in a major psychology, neuroscience, or even general science journal. But my point would still stand in those cases as well.

Linda
 
fls said:
Sure, I could also make a case for its publication in a major psychology, neuroscience, or even general science journal. But my point would still stand in those cases as well
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure you could make a case for more areas than that, including parapsychology.
 
Last edited:
Formal Dining Room Set said:
Oh, I'm sure you could make the case for more areas than those, including parapsychology.
Click to expand...
Sure. But I was talking about presenting this to a wider audience, and in a way that it could be regarded as having some legitimacy. Abstract presentations with sparse details, at tiny conferences put on by a field under a cloud of suspicion (regardless of whether it's deserved), are not the place other scientists expect to hear about remarkable discoveries relevant to their field. If all we knew about the Milwaukee Protocol were some vague references to a bat bite and a non-specific illness in a teenager from which she recovered, presented at the Australasian Bat Conference, instead of the detailed report published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the idea that rabies is potentially treatable would similarly be met with skepticism.

Linda
 
fls said:
Sure. But I was talking about presenting this to a wider audience, and in a way that it could be regarded as having some legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Presenting work at the PA, which is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), is perfectly legitimate. You make it sound like she is trying to pass off anonymous message board banter as peer review. Jealousy doesn't become you, Linda.
 
fls said:
Wow. I can't see this in a physics journal at all.

I'm suggesting that its relevant to medicine because the research is a result of Dr. Powell's practice as a psychiatrist. Because the subject is austistic and it is proposed that this may be related to her autism. Because research on other novel human abilities are relevant to medicine (e.g. blindsight). Because this would have significant therapeutic implications. Because it is relevant to a thorough understanding of human physiology.

I could go on, but I don't understand what would make someone think to exclude this from medicine in the first place. Sure, I could also make a case for its publication in a major psychology, neuroscience, or even general science journal. But my point would still stand in those cases as well.

Linda
Click to expand...

ok sure, but you've made my point. If this is the "smoking gun" evidence, it's relevant to a plethora of scientific domains. I don't think publishing in a medical journal would do it justice. It needs to go to Nature or Science (Nature has published telepathy research in the past). If the results are earthshattering, as you say, it needs to reach a wide audience of mainstream researchers. It needs to reach the ones who are best equipped to figure out what's going on, and that's probably the physicists not the medics. I agree that it would probably not get published in a dedicated physics journal.
 
electricfunk said:
ok sure, but you've made my point. If this is the "smoking gun" evidence, it's relevant to a plethora of scientific domains. I don't think publishing in a medical journal would do it justice. It needs to go to Nature or Science (Nature has published telepathy research in the past). If the results are earthshattering, as you say, it needs to reach a wide audience of mainstream researchers. It needs to reach the ones who are best equipped to figure out what's going on, and that's probably the physicists not the medics. I agree that it would probably not get published in a dedicated physics journal.
Click to expand...
I'll agree with Nature or Science, too.

Didn't want to be accused of reaching too high. :)

Linda
 
fls said:
Hmmm...Dr. Powell's abstract is the only one which looks remarkable. But her findings are astonishing and earth-shattering (if performed properly). And she's a doctor, right? So why are they being presented at a tiny fringe conference which won't get the attention of her colleagues, instead of being published where medical breakthroughs usually get published - one of the major medical journals, or at least one of the premier journals in her field (psychiatry?)? Admittedly, she'd have to have done a much better write-up to get it into a mainstream journal, but presumably she is capable of stepping up to the plate in that regard (if she is capable of performing the experiment properly). At the very least, the abstract should have been presented at a decent medical or neuroscience conference (again with the caveat that abstract would need to be properly written to get accepted). Parnia showed us that properly performed experiments and properly written abstracts get accepted at well-respected and highly attended medical conferences.

Linda
Click to expand...

Thanks for calling my attention to this one. Missed it the first time through!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top