Nanometer-minded persons in science

[Vladimir Mat]

Membrane theory and the decline of scientific method

V.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. 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.

 

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

[bascule]

What "aprofound" paper. There are certainly no multidisciplinary scientists, no, they all have their heads tucked into one little corner and that's the only place they do any thinking!

 

Nobody working on the level of theory? In physics, I would think of an Ed Witten or Lee Smolin... I can't imagine any concept more important than the intrinsic structure of the universe, and that's what they have their heads wrapped around.

 

I don't know much about cell biology/"membrane theory" but this just sounds like the rant of a disgruntled biologist... and by rant I mean he posted an "Abstract" he didn't even bother to spell check. This comes off more like an ostentatious blog post.

[GutZ]

I don't understand.

 

Is that trying to say that since the base theory (broad view) is different (in method) then the theories that now being done in specialized/secular/branching method limits the validity of it all since it stems off the original base theory, therefore having no theoritical base of its own?

 

Isn't that the point? I mean if you build a foundation for a house, do you need to build a foundation seperate for each section of the house, I am so lost with this.....

[Vladimir Mat]

Dear GutZ,

 

It is possible to ideate two situations. (i) Einstein theory with a lot of details, and (ii) a lot of details without the theory. Cell physiology, I think, has put in the second situation. What about this?

 

The reference about membrane theory:

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