• Welcome to TONMO, the premier cephalopod interest community, and birthplace of #WorldOctopusDay and #CephalopodAwarenessDays. Founded in 2000, we are a large community of experts, hobbyists and enthusiasts, some of whom come together when we host our biennial conference. To join in on the fun, sign up. You can also become a Supporter for just $50/year to remove all ads and enjoy other perks. Follow us on Twitter for more cephy goodness.

Discussion of controversial problems in Cell Physiology

Steve O'Shea

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,671
Hi Vladimir. Welcome to TONMO. Your area of expertise is quite outside that of mine, and most members. I am interested to see whether you repost - I must admit I viewed your new thread and post as potential SPAM - but I'm prepared to leave it until I know otherwise - and I also understand that it takes some effort to join up to this site, so spamming is not a major problem. Perhaps you could tell us a little more about yourself, and how your research and that of cephalopods is related.
Kindest
Steve
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
6
Cephalopods has physiology too

Hi Steve! I agree with you that this site is not absolutely suitable place for my post. I hoped only that physiology can be an interesting science too for members of your site. According to my experience, there are no sites in the Internet on which problems of physiology of living cell would be discussed. I find everywhere deep specialization only. Everywhere very narrow questions are discussed only: how correctly dissolve some chemicals or what type electrophoresis should be chose. Nobody sees big and important problems in science. Everybody has only one "global" problem: how made electrophoresis correctly. That is all we need! As a result my post looks like spam everywhere...
 

Steve O'Shea

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
4,671
That's fine Vladimir; thanks for responding. Now that we know this to be sincere I am sure that you will hear from somebody, some time; being a very specialised science (relative to what we have discussed online here before) I wouldn't expect to be inundated with questions, but that is just the nature of the game.

I have tremendous respect for physiologists, and probably a ton of questions for you, as soon as I get them sorted out in my head. This site is, afterall, about octopus [insert 'and squid'] biology and physiology.

A double welcome to you.
Me
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
6
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.

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
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,169
Mr. Matveev,

In reading your post, I was struck by a few thoughts that have been on my mind lately about science in the modern world. I, too, have my concerns about how science is being used for political and non-scientific motives. Also, I appreciate your post, because TONMO’s science section occasionally needs a good external view. Since much work on cephalopods is on the cytological level, your post could spark a lot of new questions and ideas. That being said, there are a few questions I would like to ask you concerning your recent post.

I agree that I would like to see scientists as a unified front against the problems facing mankind. I also agree that I occasionally see a baffling lack of general knowledge by both students and instructors alike. This may be due to specialization, but isn’t such specialization the result of the progression of science itself? Since time out of mind, scientists have used and built upon the work of their predecessors. Specialization occurs due to the discovery of greater parts to the whole. Are you saying that this is somehow inappropriate or flawed? Or are you stating that the scientific method itself, or that modern science is flawed? In what ways are they flawed?

Can this lack of general knowledge also be attributed to academic laziness? We live in an era where information databases and e-mail are just clicks away from anywhere. Could it not be that the lack of real information exchange so essential to the propagation and survival of science is due to scientists simply not communicating with their peers or publishing in established journals? Could encouraging more scientists to communicate more frequently solve this problem?

Cell theory is just theory, yes, but research using aspects of this theory have led to discoveries in cell physiology from membrane depolarization to the action of cytotoxins (all important in the field of cephalopods). It can also be argued that gravity is just a theory, and yet we observe that it affects our biology on many levels and must be taken into account when dealing with bone growth and muscle development, to name a few examples. Are you saying that cell theory is incorrect, or that we should modify our approach? How would you go about doing this?

In his book The Growth of Biological Thought, Dr. Ernst Mayr argues that while the scientific method is good, it sometimes detracts from the goal of science, which is to answer our questions about the world around us. He also makes the point that many if not all theories have a few scientifically based contrary or alternative hypotheses. In short, theories change, and science cannot view them as dogma. In The Demon-Haunted World, Dr. Carl Sagan states that Hippocrates even told his students to examine all the possible theories, even those that contradicted observations. Such rules are the fundamentals for science are they not? What would you argue has gone wrong with science? Could you explain a bit more?

Thank you for your post. We always appreciate food for thought.

John
 

DHyslop

Architeuthis
Registered
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,713
Fujisawas Sake said:
In his book The Growth of Biological Thought, Dr. Ernst Mayr argues that while the scientific method is good, it sometimes detracts from the goal of science, which is to answer our questions about the world around us. He also makes the point that many if not all theories have a few scientifically based contrary or alternative hypotheses.

John

RIP Ernst Mayr, who died at the age of 100 last week.

Dan
 

um...

Architeuthis
Registered
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
1,968
Too much data, too little brains. Back in the day, someone could know everything because nobody knew anything. Now, nobody knows anything because everybody knows something.

:beer:

I'm going to be watching this potentially interesting thread, but I think that'll be the last time I post to it. :-/
 

cthulhu77

TONMO Supporter
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,638
"Now, nobody knows anything because everybody knows something."

Well spoken...it seems more and more common for the general public to have a conversational knowledge of the sciences...which is refreshing (I argued for a good hour with our waiter last night on some scientific issues), but can be ludicrous also...too many chiefs, and damn few indians!
greg
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
6
Dear John,

Hippocrates was a clever person, but whether you can tell the same to a reviewer of your article? No, because a reviewer "does not know anything because he knows something". "Too much data, too little brains." Therefore a field where scientific method works is permanently narrowed. How it is possible to revaluate some general theory, having so little brains? That is my main idea. That is the result of specialization in science.

Vladimir Matveev
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://www.actomyosin.spb.ru
 

Forum statistics

Threads
20,877
Messages
206,842
Members
8,473
Latest member
bjh1951

Monty Awards

TONMOCON IV (2011): Terri
TONMOCON V (2013): Jean
TONMOCON VI (2015): Taollan
TONMOCON VII (2018): ekocak


Top