The Laboratory of System Technologies for Disease Program Management presents the next topic of the interdisciplinary scientific and cognitive cycle: "MD, PhD, Professor Valeriy Revo in the interior of the portrait of Don Quixote of La Mancha" (V. V. Revo, 1960, "F. I. Shalyapin in the role of Don Quixote ". Oil, cardboard. 24.5 x 33.5). Topic: "The Natural Philosophical Dust of the Humanitarian Sphere".
Based on the materials of the 5th ed. of my monograph "Prolegomena to Future Metamedicine".
This material will be posted on my YouTube channel.
1. Granite of Science
2. Natural Philosophical Dust
3. Systems Paradigm: Sources and Priorities
4. Remedy for Natural Philosophical Dust
1. GRANIT OF SCIENCE
In 1964, a monograph by the outstanding Austrian doctor and pathological of Hungarian origin (since 1932 in Canada) Hans Selye “From Dream to Discovery. How to be a scientist”. In it, the author complained about the rapidly developing process of narrowing the horizons of researchers. This process is especially noticeable in the humanitarian sphere. And in the natural sciences the same tendency manifested itself. Along with this, the divergence of the natural sciences and the humanities has reached critical significance. At the same time, by the end of the first third of the 20th century, works of the fundamental level gave way to phenomenological narrow-topic group messages. The number of co-authors in these works sometimes included more than a dozen names. At the same time, the contribution of each person in the conducted research, as a rule, was impossible to assess.
At the same time, another pattern emerged. Here is a typical example. In 1866, the Austrian naturalist monk Gregor I. Mendel (1822-1884) published the results of his work in a small local journal “Naturforschender Verein in Brünn”. In this article, he for the first time postulated the presence of elements of heredity, which we today refer to one of the basic systemic levels of organization in the hierarchy of types of biological memory – the genetic level. He sent the article to more than a hundred addresses of university libraries and natural science societies who, he assumed, might take an interest in it. However, no one answered, and only three researchers got acquainted with it. Among them was Ivan Fedorovich Schmalhausen, who referred to her in his dissertation. Nobody remembered Mendel's publication again. Only in 1900 this work was adequately presented by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries (1848-1935), the German botanist Carl E. Correns (1864-1933) and the Austrian geneticist Erich Tshermak (Edler von Seysenegg, 1871-1962).
2. FROM GRANITE OF SCIENCE TO NATURPHILOSOPHIC DUST
Sometimes the sad fate of articles sent to scientific journals depends on the professional incompetence of the leaders and experts of these publications. Here is one example that Alexey Arkadyevich Kuzmin, director of the MRTI of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in which at that time I headed the Research Laboratory of Systemic Pathology and Prevention, told me about it.
Prominent chemical analyst Boris Pavlovich Belousov has repeatedly received a refusal from so-called scientific journals for an offer to publish a work on the auto-oscillatory chemical reactions he discovered. Desperate, he generally refused to send his works to them. In a series of experiments, he discovered that an open system, despite the growth of entropy during its evolution, is capable of self-organization. Such a system, upon reaching the point of dissipation, is capable of complication, of movement from chaos to order. This, by the way, is the thermodynamic essence of the process of systemic metamorphosis of living things. The fate of the publication of the physician and natural scientist Julius Robert von Mayer, who substantiated the first law of thermodynamics, was surprisingly similar. Both of these works were fundamental.
What are the solution options when selecting an article proposed for publication in a specialized scientific journal? I believe there are only four of them.
1. The editor accepts the submitted materials on faith, especially when he knows the author of the article well.
2. The editor and his experts believe that they understand the content of the material that they take for publication.
3. The editor, having an appropriate knowledge base, will try to understand its content. However, both he and his so-called experts did not have the necessary thermodynamic resources for this. This is a requirement of a second beginning. It seems that this principle was familiar to the Chinese of Confucius' time. It was then that the famous maxim appeared: "The teacher appears when the student comes."
4. In this option, the author pays for the publication at his own expense, or funds provided to him by third-party sources. This opportunity is becoming more common today.
3. SOURCES AND PRIORITIES
The kaleidoscopic nature and atomization of scientific research topics, the representation space of which has expanded immeasurably in connection with the emergence of the Internet, along with the divergence of the natural sciences and the humanities, have led to the transformation of publications in scientific periodicals into natural philosophical dust. The archaic paradigm, preserved from Aristotle and Paracelsus, which presupposes the presence of an external factor for the development of many processes natural for life, for example, diseases, also contributed to this process. Aristotle considered it necessary for a uniform rectilinear movement to apply some external force to it, which did not imply the presence of initial predetermination. In turn, Paracelsus believed this in relation to the disease. He called for the removal of the disease, as if it were some kind of weed, and not an internally predetermined natural process, the program of which is stored in the phylogenetic memory of any living creature, including humans. By the end of the 18th century, the divergence of the natural sciences and the humanities was already evident.
Claude Bernard quotes the words of Pierre-Simon de Laplace, who proposed admitting physicians to the Academy of Sciences in order "they to have the opportunity to communicate with scientists" (Bernard Claude. An introduction to the study of experienced medicine.) Today, doctors are admitted to the academy, moreover, many even became its members, but this did not change the situation. Apparently, to paraphrase Mikhail Zhvanetsky, something in the Academy needs to be corrected. Today, disease is represented as “… any harmful deviation from the normal structural or functional state of the body, usually associated with certain signs and symptoms and different in nature from physical damage” [https://www.britannica.com/science/diseaseDisease]. The epithet "harmful" in this context is incorrect, because in the body we have a lot of harm. One Krebs cycle is worth a lot.
The World Health Organization defines disease as "a disruption in the function or structure of any part of the body" due to an inability to fully adapt to "stimuli and stress." It is suggested that the disease “can be prevented or treated by altering any combination of factors” [http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/ageing/ahp_vol5_glossary.pdf]. This vacuous declaration illustrates an archaic natural-philosophical approach to chronic diseases that, by definition, cannot offer technologies for their treatment and prevention.
Diseases, as natural processes for living things, appeared "with the first signs of life on earth."
I. V. Davydovsky, citing these words of S. P. Botkin, showed (1962) that "pathogenetic mechanisms are a historically prepared possibility of corresponding diseases", the pattern of which is "the principle of self-development." This quote is nothing more than the recognition of the programmatic mechanism of diseases.
4. SYSTEMIC PARADIGM AGAINST NATURPHILOSOPHIC DUST
My systemic information paradigm (V.V. Revo, 1986) presents a disease as a gradual development in the body of any specific phylogenetically determined innate program [Revo V.V., 2001]. It should be assumed (V. V. Revo, 1986–2018) that complexes of protein nature and their wave forms are an attribute element for disease programs at all levels of the systemic organization of life. S. P. Botkin, I. V. Davydovsky I. V., H. Selye recognized the program mechanism of the disease. Davydovsky emphasized in this regard that “whatever the characteristics of the pathological process (traumatic, infectious, cancerous), this is a self-developing process, regardless of whether an etiological factor (microbe or infection) is involved in it or does not participate (the tool that caused the injury, the carcinogen that caused the cancer)”. Any disease not only reduces the adaptive resources of the body, but at the same time increases the diversity in it, which ensures a decrease in its entropy (Revo VV, System semiotics of diseases of man and society. M.: Publishing house "Logos". 2004.312 s. LC Control Number 2005427067).
The presented materials allowed me to reasonably conclude in one of the 50 postulates of systemic metamedicine in my monograph "Prolegomena to Future Metamedicine": "Atomization of the subject of medicine turned the materials of its periodicals into natural philosophical dust."
Based on the materials of the 5th ed. of my monograph "Prolegomena to Future Metamedicine".
This material will be posted on my YouTube channel.
1. Granite of Science
2. Natural Philosophical Dust
3. Systems Paradigm: Sources and Priorities
4. Remedy for Natural Philosophical Dust
1. GRANIT OF SCIENCE
In 1964, a monograph by the outstanding Austrian doctor and pathological of Hungarian origin (since 1932 in Canada) Hans Selye “From Dream to Discovery. How to be a scientist”. In it, the author complained about the rapidly developing process of narrowing the horizons of researchers. This process is especially noticeable in the humanitarian sphere. And in the natural sciences the same tendency manifested itself. Along with this, the divergence of the natural sciences and the humanities has reached critical significance. At the same time, by the end of the first third of the 20th century, works of the fundamental level gave way to phenomenological narrow-topic group messages. The number of co-authors in these works sometimes included more than a dozen names. At the same time, the contribution of each person in the conducted research, as a rule, was impossible to assess.
At the same time, another pattern emerged. Here is a typical example. In 1866, the Austrian naturalist monk Gregor I. Mendel (1822-1884) published the results of his work in a small local journal “Naturforschender Verein in Brünn”. In this article, he for the first time postulated the presence of elements of heredity, which we today refer to one of the basic systemic levels of organization in the hierarchy of types of biological memory – the genetic level. He sent the article to more than a hundred addresses of university libraries and natural science societies who, he assumed, might take an interest in it. However, no one answered, and only three researchers got acquainted with it. Among them was Ivan Fedorovich Schmalhausen, who referred to her in his dissertation. Nobody remembered Mendel's publication again. Only in 1900 this work was adequately presented by the Dutch botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries (1848-1935), the German botanist Carl E. Correns (1864-1933) and the Austrian geneticist Erich Tshermak (Edler von Seysenegg, 1871-1962).
2. FROM GRANITE OF SCIENCE TO NATURPHILOSOPHIC DUST
Sometimes the sad fate of articles sent to scientific journals depends on the professional incompetence of the leaders and experts of these publications. Here is one example that Alexey Arkadyevich Kuzmin, director of the MRTI of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in which at that time I headed the Research Laboratory of Systemic Pathology and Prevention, told me about it.
Prominent chemical analyst Boris Pavlovich Belousov has repeatedly received a refusal from so-called scientific journals for an offer to publish a work on the auto-oscillatory chemical reactions he discovered. Desperate, he generally refused to send his works to them. In a series of experiments, he discovered that an open system, despite the growth of entropy during its evolution, is capable of self-organization. Such a system, upon reaching the point of dissipation, is capable of complication, of movement from chaos to order. This, by the way, is the thermodynamic essence of the process of systemic metamorphosis of living things. The fate of the publication of the physician and natural scientist Julius Robert von Mayer, who substantiated the first law of thermodynamics, was surprisingly similar. Both of these works were fundamental.
What are the solution options when selecting an article proposed for publication in a specialized scientific journal? I believe there are only four of them.
1. The editor accepts the submitted materials on faith, especially when he knows the author of the article well.
2. The editor and his experts believe that they understand the content of the material that they take for publication.
3. The editor, having an appropriate knowledge base, will try to understand its content. However, both he and his so-called experts did not have the necessary thermodynamic resources for this. This is a requirement of a second beginning. It seems that this principle was familiar to the Chinese of Confucius' time. It was then that the famous maxim appeared: "The teacher appears when the student comes."
4. In this option, the author pays for the publication at his own expense, or funds provided to him by third-party sources. This opportunity is becoming more common today.
3. SOURCES AND PRIORITIES
The kaleidoscopic nature and atomization of scientific research topics, the representation space of which has expanded immeasurably in connection with the emergence of the Internet, along with the divergence of the natural sciences and the humanities, have led to the transformation of publications in scientific periodicals into natural philosophical dust. The archaic paradigm, preserved from Aristotle and Paracelsus, which presupposes the presence of an external factor for the development of many processes natural for life, for example, diseases, also contributed to this process. Aristotle considered it necessary for a uniform rectilinear movement to apply some external force to it, which did not imply the presence of initial predetermination. In turn, Paracelsus believed this in relation to the disease. He called for the removal of the disease, as if it were some kind of weed, and not an internally predetermined natural process, the program of which is stored in the phylogenetic memory of any living creature, including humans. By the end of the 18th century, the divergence of the natural sciences and the humanities was already evident.
Claude Bernard quotes the words of Pierre-Simon de Laplace, who proposed admitting physicians to the Academy of Sciences in order "they to have the opportunity to communicate with scientists" (Bernard Claude. An introduction to the study of experienced medicine.) Today, doctors are admitted to the academy, moreover, many even became its members, but this did not change the situation. Apparently, to paraphrase Mikhail Zhvanetsky, something in the Academy needs to be corrected. Today, disease is represented as “… any harmful deviation from the normal structural or functional state of the body, usually associated with certain signs and symptoms and different in nature from physical damage” [https://www.britannica.com/science/diseaseDisease]. The epithet "harmful" in this context is incorrect, because in the body we have a lot of harm. One Krebs cycle is worth a lot.
The World Health Organization defines disease as "a disruption in the function or structure of any part of the body" due to an inability to fully adapt to "stimuli and stress." It is suggested that the disease “can be prevented or treated by altering any combination of factors” [http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/ageing/ahp_vol5_glossary.pdf]. This vacuous declaration illustrates an archaic natural-philosophical approach to chronic diseases that, by definition, cannot offer technologies for their treatment and prevention.
Diseases, as natural processes for living things, appeared "with the first signs of life on earth."
I. V. Davydovsky, citing these words of S. P. Botkin, showed (1962) that "pathogenetic mechanisms are a historically prepared possibility of corresponding diseases", the pattern of which is "the principle of self-development." This quote is nothing more than the recognition of the programmatic mechanism of diseases.
4. SYSTEMIC PARADIGM AGAINST NATURPHILOSOPHIC DUST
My systemic information paradigm (V.V. Revo, 1986) presents a disease as a gradual development in the body of any specific phylogenetically determined innate program [Revo V.V., 2001]. It should be assumed (V. V. Revo, 1986–2018) that complexes of protein nature and their wave forms are an attribute element for disease programs at all levels of the systemic organization of life. S. P. Botkin, I. V. Davydovsky I. V., H. Selye recognized the program mechanism of the disease. Davydovsky emphasized in this regard that “whatever the characteristics of the pathological process (traumatic, infectious, cancerous), this is a self-developing process, regardless of whether an etiological factor (microbe or infection) is involved in it or does not participate (the tool that caused the injury, the carcinogen that caused the cancer)”. Any disease not only reduces the adaptive resources of the body, but at the same time increases the diversity in it, which ensures a decrease in its entropy (Revo VV, System semiotics of diseases of man and society. M.: Publishing house "Logos". 2004.312 s. LC Control Number 2005427067).
The presented materials allowed me to reasonably conclude in one of the 50 postulates of systemic metamedicine in my monograph "Prolegomena to Future Metamedicine": "Atomization of the subject of medicine turned the materials of its periodicals into natural philosophical dust."