Evolution Of Scientific Method

V

Vladimir Matveev

Registered Member
Discussion of controversial problems in Cell Physiology

Join Google Group "Cell Physiology and Biophysics" to discuss hidden problems of a theory of the living cell:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Cell-Physiology/about

Themes for discussion can be found on the following sites:

http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/hidden_history/ling_newbook.htm
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/revolution/contents.htm
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/reviewonpollack.htm
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/ling.htm
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/pollack.htm
http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/edelmann.htm

Public website: http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru

There is the first therme for discussion in the group:

EVOLUTION OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD

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. A profound 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 (are) 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 not 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 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.

Join our group!
 
Science is a process as opposed to a discovered fact. It starts with an observation that needs explaining. If your explanation is testable, meaning that you provide a means of disproving your explanation, then we call that explanation a hypothesis.

If we test the hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and the implications of the explanation are broad, encompassing more than just the data necessary to formulate it, then we call the hypothesis a theory. The more we try and fail to disprove the theory, and the more broadly you are able to apply the theory, the stronger that theory becomes. You never prove it though; you just make it more and more solid.<Hr Width=80% NoShade>

In another thread I tried to explain to another member the need to attempt to disprove a theory before you lable it as solid. Although the gentleman was knowledgable, he did not get what I was saying, and after several attempts, I gave up trying to convince him. Without aggressive failed attempts to disprove the theory, you fall victim to the very non-scientific trap of confirmation. Karl Popper made a strong case for it in his 1963 paper entitled, <A HRef=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html Target=Blank>Science as Falsification</A>. It is one of the great papers in science because it defines for us the difference between the process of science and that of pseudo-science.
 
Maddad I am not clear whether you are agreeing with Vladimir, disagreeing, or making a related, but neutral observation. I would welcome clarification. Thanks..
 
Vladimir Matveev said:
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. A profound specialization dominating in quickly developing fields of science causes a crisis of the scientific method......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.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter twaddle. :bugeye:

There is no “crisis in the scientific method” and the only place such imaginary crises are discussed is on internet fora by people who are clearly not involved in research science in the first place. Quite often I find that such uninformed criticism of the scientific method is a prelude to advocation of scientific creationism. The scientific method is as robust now as it has ever been. The reason people specialize is simply because scientific knowledge has progressed to the point where it’s not possible to have detailed expert knowledge in many areas at once, nothing more. There are only 24 hours in a day. Specialization is not to the detriment of the scientific method.<P>
 
Ophiolite
I stopped reading Vladimir's post part way through the big paragraph. He had pasted someone else's thoughts part way through, so it was unclear who those two people were he was talking about. Looking at the portion Hercules Rockefeller referenced, I didn't miss much.
 
One of the evidences for degradation of the scientist's horizon is conversion of cell physiology into molecular physiology or physiology of the living molecule. The cell as the whole has become a history. The specialists who graduate from universities know reasonably well the operation of only some part of the cell, and the more limited the sphere of competence of a specialist, the more greatly appreciated such specialist is. Such terms as "protoplasm" and "cytoplasm" are used increasingly seldom. Papers have already become to appear in which the even the term "cell" is absent.
 
Funny. In my last paper I used "cell" about a dozen times. Of course, as HR pointed out, the more knowledge there is available, a certain amount of specialization is inevitable. However, technologies like e.g. proteomics now allow global analyses and the next step is to take it to systems biology. Far the opposite of what you are proposing.
In addition, most biologists have to have the broad general knowledge in addition to the specialized knowledge in a specific field in order to interprete the data and while I do see that quite a few (esp. on phd student level) fail to do so, I fail to see it as a general crisis. There are always some more or less capable than others.
 
CharonZ: "Funny. In my last paper I used "cell" about a dozen times."

Thank you, CharonZ. You saved a science for mankind!!!

At present it is commonly accepted that the most characteristic feature of the modern science is its marked specialization. Even researchers studying similar cellular structures - for instance, channels - live now in parallel worlds: those who study Na-channels do not see too much sense in communicating with those who study Ca-channels, and even less with those who study channels for organic molecules. Of course, expanding specialization is not merely a sensation or individual observations. We see everywhere objective evidence for degradation of sciences into individual "earldoms" whose autonomous status is constantly being enhanced. The most evident proof in favor for this is a rise of the number of publication co-authors, reaching in some cases up to several hundred names. Also steadily increasing are the numbers of specialized journals and conferences. The mean length of formulations of the essence of discoveries, for which Nobel Prizes are awarded, increases, while the number of "discoveries" decreases and their significance can be correctly evaluated by only an increasingly narrow circle of specialists. A decrease of significance of investigations on the background of a steady rise of the number of publications means that expenditures for science increase, while their true yield decreases. But whereas economic consequences of the specialization are widely discussed, the intellectual menace impending over science still escapes proper attention.
 
Last edited:
There is some truth to the first post. It is just too easy to get a theory published without any experimental support. I mean, a paper can contain experimental data, but this data has actually nothing to do with the theory propagated in the paper.
 
To spuriousmonkey:

We fail too often to bear in mind that facts themselves not only do not speak about anything, but they do not contradict to anything. It is not facts, but their interpretations, which contradict to theories. Therefore, a theory is to be contrasted with another theory, but not with a fact. Different theories have different understanding of the same fact, and this understanding often is of mutually exclusive character: what makes sense from some particular point of view, is absurd from another viewpoint. In such cases we come across an extremely interesting phenomenon that is very important for science – the logical disruption between two theories. While knowing and understanding language of only one theory, we are unable to understand statements spoken in language of another theoretical concept. The difference in language separates scientists in the same way as it separates peoples.
 
Vladimir Matveev said:
One of the evidences for degradation of the scientist's horizon is conversion of cell physiology into molecular physiology or physiology of the living molecule. The cell as the whole has become a history.
Click to expand...

More complete nonsense. :eek:

You’re just making stuff up as you go along. As a developmental biologist, much of my work centers on cellular biology and <I>in vivo</I> cell behavior. As such, I fully appreciate the value of cell physiology/biology as much as I do genetics and molecular biology. The same can be said for countless other biologists. Cell biology is a whole field in itself. There are whole journals devoted to nothing but cell biology.

This is just getting sad Vladimir…. :rolleyes: <P>
 
I agree with the essential sadness of this argument. First of all, I doubt that there are hardly any Ca-channel biologists that, if their work does not intimately involve Na-channels, they at least have quite a dialogue with other scientists whose work does, given how much the activities of these channels interrelate in a biological sense. Secondly, in the post-genomic era, everything is moving toward inclusivity. You can't get a PhD anymore for simply cloning sequencing a gene - you have to show how this gene relates to the overall function of the cell/organism. Earlier biologists (because not that many people were interested in biology) had many new things to observe but couldn't put it all together the way we can now. I guess from a standpoint of pure knowledge, well-rounded scientists would be better able to fit the pieces together on their own. However, if you actually want to accomplish something with scientific knowledge (drugs, etc), an extremely well-rounded scientist is a liability given that he/she would spend most of their lives learning and only a few years accomplishing.
That is why there are hundreds of authors on important papers - to accomplish the synthesis of the knowledge. We live in the Information Age now, and communication is at light speed. From your arguments, Vladimir, it is clear that you are not a scientist - the "facts" that you so casually describe are essentially unknowable - that's why there's always scatter in the data. Theories incorporate data that approximate "facts" and change as the data more closely approaches the "fact" of the universe. And nothing's stopping you from becoming this "father of science" - read a book instead of posting stupid arguments on a forum.
 
According to an old Indian parable, well known in Russia, residents of the city of blind people asked several respected citizens to act as experts and to describe to them the nature of an elephant, about which they had heard much. It happened that one of these animals was present near the walls of their city. One expert who examined the elephant's leg by feeling it came to the conclusion that the elephant was a column. Another expert, upon touching carefully the animal's tail, stated that the elephant was a rope. The expert who got the tusk was absolutely sure that the elephant resembled a ploughshare. Clearly, the experts failed to agree and continued to dispute all their lives, since each one felt that their case was based firmly on established facts. Thus, each of them was in the right, but all of them were wrong on the whole.
 
I am very glad really :D that I appeared here among of the great scientists of our time. I strongly invite everyone who did not yet become true scientist to take a part in this thread.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the general idea of this thread; people, in becoming highly specialized, are losing their ability to function independently. This isn't even an issue limited to science, but to society in general.
Who here could plant and raise corn if needed? Build their own house? Sew up a bad cut? Paint a picture? Tell a story?

Specialization creates the ability to really focus on small areas of work, and to become true experts in those fields. But the advances that such specialization brings come at the cost of general knowledge.




As far as the scientific method; I *do* think that we are more and more coming to a point where the scientific method is not functional enough to cover all theories. String theory, for example, deals with things so small that they are un-testable in the classic scientific sense.
Anthropology already uses a modified version of the scientific method, due to limits of field research. Same with paleobiology and archeology. Theories in these fields can only be tested to a certain extent; we don't have dinosaurs or great Aztec cities around to test the effects dietary changes.
But that doesn't stop those fields from being "science."

As we begin to approach the *experimental* sciences with a broader world view (such as dealing with cell biology in terms of chaotic feedback from surround cells, or weather pattern prediction that takes into account solar radiation and ocean currents), the scientific method is more and more difficult to apply - changing only one variable at a time in the process of testing chaotic systems is nearly impossible.
 
FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE EVOLUTION
At present it is commonly accepted that the most characteristic feature of the modern science is its marked specialization. Even researchers studying similar cellular structures - for instance, channels - live now in parallel worlds: those who study Na-channels do not see too much sense in communicating with those who study Ca-channels, and even less with those who study channels for organic molecules. Of course, expanding specialization is not merely a sensation or individual observations. We see everywhere objective evidence for degradation of sciences into individual "earldoms" whose autonomous status is constantly being enhanced. The most evident proof in favor for this is a rise of the number of publication co-authors, reaching in some cases up to several hundred names. Also steadily increasing are the numbers of specialized journals and conferences. The mean length of formulations of the essence of discoveries, for which Nobel Prizes are awarded, increases, while the number of "discoveries" decreases and their significance can be correctly evaluated by only an increasingly narrow circle of specialists. A decrease of significance of investigations on the background of a steady rise of the number of publications means that expenditures for science increase, while their true yield decreases. But whereas economic consequences of the specialization are widely discussed, the intellectual menace impending over science still escapes proper attention.

The danger has descended over the Scientific Method itself. Theories of a general biological character were accepted many decades ago, and nowadays, due to the specialization, there are no scientists who master these theories so well as those who could be rightfully considered their bearers. As a result, the profound generalizations of the past have turned out to be outside the natural process of renovation, beyond criticism. If competing theories appear under these conditions, their significance and advantages over classical knowledge will be unable to be properly evaluated, fantastic as this might seem. There has appeared or can appear the situation when scientists mastering the most modern methods of investigations at the molecular level are guided in their work by obsolete or even erroneous concepts of the general character that they inherited from the classicism epoch. The theories of the past, instead of being always under scrutiny, have turned into the dogmas incompatible with the spirit of the scientific method. The extra specialization is a menace, which may lead to the loss of the integrity of scientific knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top