Here I offer a preface to my new work: Systemic and semantic features of the concepts: “Systemic medicine” and “Systems medicine”. This is an illustration of dubious achievements in semantics, but not in comprehend the nature of disease.
The biology of the diseases is the subject of study and practice of classical medicine. The biology of diseases is the subject of study and practice of classical medicine. This is an interdisciplinary field, elements of which demonstrate today three negative traits. First, we observe an excessive expansion of the nomenclature' row of various “Medicines”. Secondly, the divergence of the humanities and natural sciences continues to evolve. Thirdly, there is a growing atomization of the subject areas of medicine. This phenomenon indicates a serious ontological and gnoseologically crisis in medicine. Today two "medicine" are particularly active. These are “Systemic medicine” and “Systems medicine”. Both names, as well as the names of dozens of other “medicines” are only a semantic trap. They do not represent new entities, but only confuse their authors, as well as consumers of their services. According to William of Ockham, a well-known methodological maxim recommends: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (Lat.), i.e. “The multitude should not be asserted without the need ...”. This provision is today known as "Occam's Razor".
These semantic traps cause turbulence in the head at doctor-practitioners. “Systemic medicine” and “Systems medicine” are only meaning, but they have no systemic content. For example, the levels of molecules, cells, genes, DNA, RNA, proteins, metabolites, organs, etc., are not systemically complementary elements of the whole. Such a set of elements does not constitute a systemic hierarchy, that is, these elements are not a subsystems of the systemic whole. The use of these designations has a negative epistemological effect on researchers. First, according to C. Shannon [31], the inconsistency of the term with its content increases the entropy in the information system, i.e., the degree of uncertainty in the results of any study. Secondly, the use of these epithets in working with complexes that lack the necessary attributes of the system hierarchy makes the authors believe that by default the terms “systemic” and “systematic” are synonymous. However, the systems approach has a strictly defined algorithm of actions [21]. Only such an approach allows creating system-adequate models [26]. Thus, today the terms “systems medicine” and “systemic medicine” are used incorrectly. I will try to show it at examples.
The biology of the diseases is the subject of study and practice of classical medicine. The biology of diseases is the subject of study and practice of classical medicine. This is an interdisciplinary field, elements of which demonstrate today three negative traits. First, we observe an excessive expansion of the nomenclature' row of various “Medicines”. Secondly, the divergence of the humanities and natural sciences continues to evolve. Thirdly, there is a growing atomization of the subject areas of medicine. This phenomenon indicates a serious ontological and gnoseologically crisis in medicine. Today two "medicine" are particularly active. These are “Systemic medicine” and “Systems medicine”. Both names, as well as the names of dozens of other “medicines” are only a semantic trap. They do not represent new entities, but only confuse their authors, as well as consumers of their services. According to William of Ockham, a well-known methodological maxim recommends: “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate” (Lat.), i.e. “The multitude should not be asserted without the need ...”. This provision is today known as "Occam's Razor".
These semantic traps cause turbulence in the head at doctor-practitioners. “Systemic medicine” and “Systems medicine” are only meaning, but they have no systemic content. For example, the levels of molecules, cells, genes, DNA, RNA, proteins, metabolites, organs, etc., are not systemically complementary elements of the whole. Such a set of elements does not constitute a systemic hierarchy, that is, these elements are not a subsystems of the systemic whole. The use of these designations has a negative epistemological effect on researchers. First, according to C. Shannon [31], the inconsistency of the term with its content increases the entropy in the information system, i.e., the degree of uncertainty in the results of any study. Secondly, the use of these epithets in working with complexes that lack the necessary attributes of the system hierarchy makes the authors believe that by default the terms “systemic” and “systematic” are synonymous. However, the systems approach has a strictly defined algorithm of actions [21]. Only such an approach allows creating system-adequate models [26]. Thus, today the terms “systems medicine” and “systemic medicine” are used incorrectly. I will try to show it at examples.