>>13162962Experiments are the very, very controlled experiences of scientists, meant to isolate a particular point of interest and find an empirical cause, relationship, etc. They then go through reviews by other scientists, and are either supported or contradicted by attempts at replication and by other experiments in their field. Comparing this to anecdotal personal experience is laughable, and relying on personal experience is unsound. Personal experience is by its very nature subjective. We apply motives to people, rationalize actions and events to suit ourselves, forget or alter details with time. If your personal experience is contradicted by something with better evidence, it warrant a serious reassessment of your personal narrative, not the dismissal of the new information.
>second par1. I've already explained why personal experience isn't proof
2. Culture isn't biological. So the prevalence of people thinking pheromones exist, or claiming to have experienced their effects (and these two beliefs go hand-in-hand) doesn't prove they exist either. If, during the Witch Hunts, half of people believed in witches and claimed to have been controlled or met someone who was controlled by demons or the Devil, does that mean witches and demons are real? We have widespread personal experience and cultural references, as well as courts and prisons, saying they were real. Obviously, appealing to culture isn't practical.
>That's not in the definition of pheremone. It simply isn't.Maybe not according to the first definition that comes up when you Google the word.
>Pheromones are signal molecules that are characteristic of, for example, all males of a species, not a particular individual male- Tristram D. Wyatt "The search for human pheromones: the lost decades and the necessity of returning to first principles"
Pheromones are an innate chemical communicator which are used within a species. They must produce a reliable response.
I guess this makes you a triple-nigger?
