The link is to a New Scientist article published December 3, 2008
The secret sex signals in human sweat - life - 03 December 2008 - New Scientist
James V. Kohl
It’s also here in the “Studies and Abstracts” thread.
Could it be true???
The “scientists” are so far behind the merchants and the hobyists on this forum that it’s laughable. It goes to illustrate that all of our “science” is seen though the lens of culture and human psychology. Karl Popper would not be surprised.
Scientists play by different rules. We can’t just tell people that some undisclosed (or disclosed) combination of chemicals will do… well, whatever any marketer wants you to believe. Instead, we experiment and provide disclosure of the compounds we use, so there’s no mystery about the likely cause and effect. For example, try to find any scientific evidence from anyone but me that supports the use of androsterone. Ask the merchants why they use it. When did they start using it? What’s their rationale? Where were the findings presented? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that the hobyists have it (via the marketers); I just wish they knew more about what they have, why they have it, and how it should be used.
James V. Kohl
My apologies for posting it second, without looking. It’s great to know others are paying attention to the latest news. Let me know if it shows up on the other Forum.
James V. Kohl
James,
You are quite obviously operating outside the dominant paradigm that is illustrated by quotes like this one from the referenced article.
The paradigm will change, and you are in the forefront of leading the change. The idea that pheromones only function for luring insects and helping pigs mate but have no function in humans becuse we are “rational” will not stand up to a close examination. The fact that we have been able to ignore and misinterpret the evidence in front of our faces (noses?) for so long speaks volumes about the cultural influences on our supposed “rational” scientific inquiry.
It is crazy to see quotes like
We have women regularly posting on this forum who will settle the controversy by telling researchers which chemicals affect their cycles. There’s a thread on it here this week. All that remains is for a researcher to do a “scentifically accepted” controlled experiment to prove it. Such an experiment is very easy to design. But we already know the answer. It just remains for the scientists to convince themselves and then proclaim that it is now OK for us to believe what we already know.
Lest I seem too down on scientists, let it be known that I work in a scientific field. Seeing it from the inside only reinforces my perceptions of the weakneses of science.
Nonetheless, the scientific method does have great strengths, and our culture is built upon its successes.
Agreed. Statements like “Despite this evidence, McClintock’s conclusions remain contentious because nobody has yet isolated the actual chemicals that cause the effect.” have nothing to do science. Any contention is based on misperceptions of what “should” be differences between non-human animals and humans.
Pheromones was the term used to explain what was attracting other conspecifics long before species specific pheromones were found in many different species. So why are conclusions about human pheromones contentious? Because some unscrupulous marketers took over and made claims about chemical communication among humans that have not been substantiated.
We’re not dogs or pigs, yet some marketers place us in such catagories with hopes of product sales. Journalists and scientists aren’t buying into it, but the claims that human pheromones exist are not contentious. It’s the claims about how much they affect behavior that are contentious (i.e., some marketer’s claims).
James V. Kohl