Western Association for Biofeedback and Neuroscience — Spring 2017 24 in microcosm within our own field. How were the claims rejected? By discrediting the claimant! “What is a fact?” Sterman injected into the discussion at one point during the panel discussion. More specifically, the question was “What qualifies some- thing for the status of a scientific fact?” After thinking about this for a moment, I answered: “Sufficient reproducibili- ty.” Aspiring empirical facts can advance through a process of Bayesian inference in the clinical realm to reach any arbitrary confidence level. The next obligation is then to share that information with the professional community so that it can be independently verified by others. In our community, this natural process of diffu- sion of clinical intelligence was vigorously throttled in the crib. Barry’s question took me back to a lec- ture by Clinton Rossiter, political scientist at Cornell back in the sixties, who said tongue-in-cheek at one point at a con- vocation, “I believe this so strongly that it almost becomes a fact.” The assembly roared in appreciation. Pity the poor po- litical scientist who cannot lay solid claim to many facts of his discipline. Pity also the left-brained scientist in the neuro- feedback field who claims factual status for propositions yet to be proved. The field has been full of people who believed things so strongly that they were taken to be a fact. Repeatedly, theory was invoked to deny the validity of empirical data. Superiority was claimed for QEEG- based training via the bulldozer princi- ple without any comparative evidence at all, never mind evidence that would be dispositive of the issue. Referential place- ment was deemed superior to bipolar by imprimatur. No formal comparison was ever even attempted. On the occasion of the general shift to referential placement, we went along with the crowd. When we returned to bipolar montage in our work years later, the matter was treated as high- ly controversial. The fact that the entire- ty of Sterman’s published research, and much of Lubar’s, had been based on bi- polar montage was already lost from insti- tutional memory. Referential placement had become the new fact that would bear no contravention. Just what strange world were we living in? And yet all was claimed to be in the name of science. Inter-hemispheric placement was said to be contra-indicated, in the absence of any evidence. This despite the fact that Douglas Quirk had already been using this placement exclusively for many years, from 1970 on, with great success, along with his comrade in arms, George von Hilsheimer. We spent years with such placements as our default standard. Train- ing in the lower EEG bands of delta and theta was denounced categorically as be- ing too hazardous, even though that was giving us our best results at that time, in our systematic progression to lower fre- quencies. The abstract concern about risk prevented the actual data from being at- tended to by the rest of the field. Infra-low frequency training was con- sidered so fanciful that ethical charges were considered against us within the ISNR! It just went on and on. No novelty went unassailed. The concept of preferen- tial training frequencies that had governed our work since the late nineties was sim- ply ignored, even though its implications are profound for much of neurofeedback and the proposition is readily testable.