Vladimir Matveev Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Membrane theory and the decline of scientific methodV.V. Matveev and D.N. Wheatley. "Fathers" and "sons" of theories in cell physiology: the membrane theory. Cell. Mol. Biol., 51(8): 797-801, 2005. 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. 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 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. Find full text here:http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru/fathersandsons.htm The illustration for the article:http://www.bioparadigma.spb.ru/images/Fathers.and.Sons.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 You calling them all stupid? Want to make a point here? Its a provocative thesis, but you're formally being reminded that this isn't a place to just post your abstracts. We like *discussion* around here, so please participate by asking questions, even if you want to try to be all Socratic about it! Now, apropos to your thesis, there are lots of places where interdisciplinary structures are fundamental, going way back to Rand's earliest days as well as the Santa Fe Institute. These days a lot of the most interesting science is being done by people who started in completely different fields and its arguable that a lot of m-theory really is attributable to thinkers who came from outside physics.... Hyperbolically,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Good point Valdamir!! I am reminded of the day when I was working for my Ph.D. I had this brilliant idea that it is not only the proteins inside the mitochondria that are responsible for all its functions; the lipids that constitute its membranes have an important role too. I was working on cardiolipin vesicles, and I believe I got some interesting results too. But, and that is a big BUT, how can one proceed. That's why I expressed my frustrations in the thread related to the Lords of science. I hope, I will get to read your posts more often!!:) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 And that helps us HOW?? :) We are not performing Scientific studies the way we should be?? What is the Solution then?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 I'll have to say though, I get awfully tired of people who whine and moan about how "hard" it is to make major changes. I deal with it everyday at the office and I hear it from whiny scientists with heretical ideas with paranoid delusions that "the system" is against them. Most simply seem unwilling to do anything other than follow the conventional rules rather than coming up with unconventional methods of proving their equally unconventional hypotheses. If it was easy, any idiot could do it. Get off your rear and make it happen. Tilts at windmills and builds them if they don't exist,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racoon Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 I'll have to say though, I get awfully tired of people who whine and moan about how "hard" it is to make major changes. I get tired of Mumbo-Jumbo,Quit talking about something simple, like its something complicated!And try and make the complicated something simple. Say what you mean without the Bullsh*t >>ooops. Space some paragraphs along the way; make it easy to read...use better analogies. Sorry HallenRM, we disagree a bit here. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Sorry HallenRM, we disagree a bit here. :) Disagree? but about what? I did not propose any hypothesis this time. The essence of what I said is that the scientific establishment is not ideal, it is not as perfect as we often believe. A young scientists often faces obstacles in the path to truth, regardless of the value of his/her efforts. The efforts do not get recognition they truely deserve unless there are powerful supporters. It is often very frustrating. A point that is supported by umpteen cases in the history of science. Do we still disagree :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Matveev Posted May 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 My short answers: Buffy: It is a serious problem. We should awake it up to make a hope to solve it in future. Nothing personal! "If it was easy, any idiot could do it. Get off your rear and make it happen." --- It's very good advice. Thanks! However do you consent that conventional way is boring one? hallenmr: thanks for your solidarity. Racoon: "We are not performing Scientific studies the way we should be??What is the Solution then??"Once again: We should awake it up to make a hope to solve it in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Thanks! However do you consent that conventional way is boring one?Absolutely! I hate doing things the conventional way. Bottom line: *don't* complain; *do* tell us what you're *doing* about it. We're not just gonna be amazing, we're gonna be *amazingly* amazing!Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Matveev Posted May 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Hi there! What do you think about this idea: According to my impression, old scientific literature is much richer then modern one in this way: it had a great field of different or even controversial ideas. As a result of "progress", a set of ideas in science becomes more and more coherent like political ideas in the former Soviet Union. Why? My answer: grant system has made unification of brains. If you want to survive you MUST be in agree with big shots of science. If you have some original idea you should conceal it. Instead of your own way you should choose big shot's way. Finally, it may be the way to only one "commonly accepted" idea in the future. It's a convergence of slaves. Maybe it's a good theme for some article, maybe not. I heard that grant-giving organizations understand the problem but they do not know how to solve it. Thanks Buffy for your words: "I hate doing things the conventional way."I thought I am alone in the Conventional World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somasimple Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 Hi All, Vladimir, I'll second you! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 5, 2006 Report Share Posted May 5, 2006 I heard that grant-giving organizations understand the problem but they do not know how to solve it. Do you? Its kind of a hard problem. There's not enough money, and ideas that have no backing have a much higher likelyhood of failure. Should we put all the money into the wacky ones because they might have a bigger payoff? If we put all the wacky ones in a bucket and say "10% for those ideas" who's to choose? If they're chosen randomly, this is what the people say who *don't* get the money:"They're biased against new ideas."Sound familiar? What would you do?Thanks Buffy for your words: "I hate doing things the conventional way."I thought I am alone in the Conventional World.No, but don't think that because someone decides against *one* unconventional idea that there is a "vast conservative-establishment-science conspiracy"...slow progress is not necessarily a bad thing: What if Baron von Frankenstein got a huge government grant for his work? Good idea or bad? Don't look back, someone might be gaining on you,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Matveev Posted May 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 The key problem, I think, is how to replace nanometer-minded persons by broad-minded ones... A narrow thought is a modern kind of brain deficiency. A good specialization is an impenetrable armour for all dim-wits in science. What about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 9, 2006 Report Share Posted May 9, 2006 The key problem, I think, is how to replace nanometer-minded persons by broad-minded ones... A narrow thought is a modern kind of brain deficiency. A good specialization is an impenetrable armour for all dim-wits in science. What about this?We need both specialists and generalists... the two compliement one another. Taking one of the two away would leave our society with a large void. Perhaps you could focus on ways to enhance the complimentarity of the two instead of flaming against one or the other. Cheers. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.