Re: Aberrant Anthropology

Larry C. Lyons (solomon@vt.edu)
9 Jan 1995 15:07:16 GMT

In article <Pine.SUN.3.90.950109031145.29929C-100000@voyager.cris.com>
TimAmmons, Ammons@cris.com writes:
>Subject: Re: Aberrant Anthropology>From: TimAmmons,
Ammons@cris.com>Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 03:20:21 -0500 (EST)>>> vious
discrepancy, the theory slowly lost its credibility among
>reputable > researchers. A'ha, I thought so! I've been trying to think of
>how this could be possible and it seemed to be absolute nonsense. Sounds
>like someone fudged the data a bit to fit their theory! That is why
>REPRODUCABALITY is so important in science.

>From what I remember (no I do not have the specific references) there was
one series of studies that offered a possible explanation about why only
50% or so of the research reproduced the learning effect. Apparently when
the trained planaria were navigating the mazes, they laid down a trail of
slime. In the subsequent trials, the experimental subjects merely
followed the trail. When the mazes were washed in between trials the
planaria that received the injections did no better than the controls.