==> csddd (極度自信與自戀) 提到:
> ==> Copper (Holiday Blue) 提到:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > I think this is the most problematic part.
> > You are trying to draw a conclusion "retrospectively".
> > Retrospective views are sometimes more subjective....
> > The most convincing evidence in medicine is based on
> > "prospective" study.
> > First, propose the mechanism.
> 我想,你完全誤會了。
> 科學的實驗常常是先有初步實驗結果,然後大膽的提出假設,
not very often in human science
> 接著再去印證這樣子的假設對不對,如果接下來的實驗說明了
> 之前的假設不對的話,那就要再做實驗,再依新的實驗結果來
> 產生假設,然後再實驗再實驗去印證新的假設,
> 如此重覆,直到產生正確的理論與實驗結果一致
> 所以,在這項實驗中,並非先認定了某一種機制,事實上,我們到現在
> 還不知道是由大腦的哪個部分來控制的,而很明顯的,人體的所有行為
> 都是由大腦來控制的,所以才找了神經科醫生由此著手ꄊHowever, there is no mechanism and tissue evidence between the finger and
the brain :)
You must inevitably propose one, don't you?
Then, you have to propose another theory to explain why the current knowledge
in cell biology cannot identify the presumed mechanism draw from your
experiments.
In short, are you saying that there is something other than nerve between
finger and brain??
Or,
there is another unidentified receptor in finger??
Or,
finger transfer the information via none of the human tissue??
Or, whatever....????
--
☆ [Origin:椰林風情] [From: rjot-164-107-208-72.resnet.] [Login: **] [Post: **]