PDA

View Full Version : "FATHERS" AND "SONS" OF THEORIES


bernard
24-01-2006, 04:59 PM
"Fathers" and "sons" of theories in cell physiology: the membrane theory.
Cell. Mol. Biol., 51(8): 797-801, 2005

http://www.somasimple.com/images/Fathers.and.Sons.jpg

1Laboratory of Cell Physiology, Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Tikhoretsky Ave 4, St. Petersburg 194064, Russia and
2BioMedES, Leggat House, Keithhall, Inverurie, Aberdeen AB51 0LX, UK

Abstract. The last 50 years in the history of life sciences are remarkable for a new important feature that looks as a great threat for their future. Aprofound specialization dominating in quickly developing fields of science causes a crisis of the scientific method. The essence of the method is a unity of two elements, the experimental data and the theory that explains them. To us, "fathers" of science, classically, were the creators of new ideas and theories. They were the true experts of their own theories. It is only they who have the right to say: "I am the theory". In other words, they were carriers of theories, of the theoretical knowledge. The fathers provided the necessary logical integrity to their theories, since theories in biology have still to be based on strict mathematical proofs. It is not true for sons. As a result of massive specialization, modern experts operate in very confined close spaces. They formulate particular rules far from the level of theory. The main theories of science are known to them only at the textbook level. Nowadays, nobody can say: "I am the theory". With whom, then is it possible to discuss today on a broader theoretical level? How can a classical theory - for example, the membrane one - be changed or even disproved under these conditions? How can the "sons" with their narrow education catch sight of membrane theory defects? As a result, "global" theories have few critics and control. Due to specialization, we have lost the ability to work at the experimental level of biology within the correct or appropriate theoretical context. The scientific method in its classic form is now being rapidly eroded. A good case can be made for "Membrane Theory", to which we will largely refer throughout this article.

Diane
24-01-2006, 08:49 PM
Loved the article Bernard, glad we're not the only ones (PTs) noticing the problem: Not so sure I'm so pleased to learn that the problem extends far beyond PT.:cool:

I'm planning to read it carefully and see if we can glean anything from it, for us, and in light of the MFR thread. :rolleyes:

nari
24-01-2006, 10:15 PM
Great stuff, Bernard...one can substitute 'physiotherapy practice' as the 'cell' and not lose the gist of the paper. We love looking at molecules and splitting them, but forget about the cell, and what a bunch of cells actually is in terms of the organism, and then back to where that organism fits (in Darwinian evolutionary sens of fitness) with the environment.


Nari

Diane
29-01-2006, 10:55 AM
I read the paper quite thoroughly and found much to consider, much that aligned with thoughts I already have about how things are going, especially in PT these days..

About cell membranes, I haven't read the AIH theory, or the person putting it forward, Gilbert Ling. I'd like to.

I was thinking how much autonomy cells give up in order to become parts of cell communities. As single cell creatures, they do everything through that membrane which has to accommodate communication, swapping of DNA, eating, excretion, respiration. They are free to come and go either by being washed around in a current, or by crawling around using their cytoskelton to make streaming pseudopods.

When they become a member of a community their food gets delivered to them, and their excretion carried away, but they still have to respire, etc through the membrane. They aren't free to move any more unless they are a neutrophile or some other immune cell. They can't just exchange DNA freely, and they have to make extra stuff for other cells. Then when their life is over they are expected to commit apoptosis. I wonder what's in it for them.

Diane
30-01-2006, 01:06 AM
I forgot to mention that I liked the "Conceptual Hallucinations" idea put out by the author. Sort of like the "perceptual fantasies" we have to sort through and weed out in PT... :rolleyes:

bernard
30-01-2006, 08:45 AM
Diane,
the book by Ling is freely available => (Not sure it works on Mac)
http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2149

I'm just amazed that a theory with such mysteries and incoherences is still the well accepted.

Just take this one;

Original experiments about action potentials were made with giant squid axons. Axons but not neurons, just parts of neurons. And these axons were emptied of their original components.
No connection with nucleus, no organelles => no ATP.

And it worked! Just think about this riddle...;)

Vladimir Matveev
11-04-2006, 08:52 AM
Dear Colleagues,
Let me pay your attention to the article:

Ling GN
Debunking the alleged resurrection of the sodium pump hypothesis.
Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1997;29(2):123-98.

Full text:
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/files/Ling-1997-Debunking.pdf

bernard
11-04-2006, 09:34 AM
Hi Vladimir and welcome to SomaSimple,

I'm pleased you joined the board because I think we share some opinions/points of view about cell "functioning".

We thought that your paper was perfectly appliable to many sciences at all.

Of course, your level of expertise is far beyond ours but I hope we could discuss about complex things with simple words.

ps: I'm very interested by neurons and I know that my little essay is simplistic. I'll enjoy if you could give your opinion and criticisms. The board allows open minded thinking.

Diane
11-04-2006, 03:56 PM
For some reason my computer will not take on that new file. :(
I left it on all night and it told me this morning that it couldn't load it. I tried again just now and no luck. Bernard, would you send it to me by email so I can try that way?
Thanks,

bernard
11-04-2006, 04:13 PM
Diane,

I made a copy on my computer. The server where the file is located is slow sometimes.
I will upload it but it is a bit heavy = 7.00 Mb

bernard
11-04-2006, 04:24 PM
Here it is

http://www.somasimple.com/pdf_files/Ling-1997-Debunking.pdf

bernard
12-04-2006, 09:58 AM
Hi Vladimir,

I read the paper and I was already aware (by you) that it was an energy problem within cells.

I think but I may be wrond that cells are perpetuating an asymmetrical milieu because it creates the best conditions for life. This asymmetry produces effects that are ignored/rejected actually. many experiments essume that ions are equally organized but IMHO they are very close to membranes?