Hypothesis

Hypothesis and conjecture are poorly regarded in the life sciences. We have been subjected to such a deluge of empirical data in the past three decades and most of it neatly fits into current paradigms (Kuhn's 'normal science'). So, it has become fashionable to act as if we can do without it. Objective, consolidative science is deemed the only valid way. All else is received with great suspicion and much disdain.

However, this only works when the working paradigms are an accurate reflection of the actual process. The history of science has taught us that old views can erect major perceptual impediments to progress.

Here I shall list various files and pointers that suggest there is value in this hypothesis.

Hypothesis – my thoughts.

"Hypothesis – my thoughts" contains a rambling set of notes that explores the hypothetical way to progress.

The hypothetical way of progress.

This article, "The hypothetical way of progress", by Huszagh and Infante highlighted the negative image that hypothesis has acquired in the biological sciences. There is another, more recent, editorial in Nature pointing to the importance of giving researchers "free reign" to roam where they want. In 2016, (Sir) Paul Nurse wrote a commentry in Nature emphasising the lack of ideas and speculation in biology

Recently, two articles have been added to the literature about Immunology and Theory. They are, to my mind, very revelaing (they are also listed in my Supportive page – see left).

The first is by Masound Manjili. I sent him an email with my comments on his paper. If he received it, he did not reply. Please note that, on the second page, I wrote "We should have paid more attention to the debris origin – it’s already processed and chopped up by antigen presenting cells." I ought to have written "We should have paid more attention to the debris origin – it's already processed and chopped up by antigen presenting cells (Class II presentation) or by proteosomes within every cell of the body (Class I presentation)." This article was a pleasure to read. For me, it echoes many of the thoughts that I have had on the incredible imbalance of empirical (dissective) immunology compared with a theoretical exploration of the immune system. Will many people listen? The retrospectoscope suggests that they won't. Once again, articles by "Cunliffe J" would not appear to be relevant/important/exist despite the point that two of my three SJI articles appeared in the same SJI "Discussion Forum". This "eclipsing" of any mention of Cunliffe + Morphostasis has been a strong trend even evident in the transient mention of this combination in the "Sense of self" debate back in 1997. It was mentioned there as a "major alternative theory" but neither referenced nor debated.

The second article is by Ruslan Medzhitov This is a facinatiung commentry summed up by Ruslan's introductory quote from Confucius; "Learning without thinking is futile. Thinking without learning is perilous."

David Horrobin

. . . on peer review, speculation and hypothesis (author of Medical Hypotheses until his death – early 2003)

And here is the comment I make at the end of the file that lists and reproduces the rejection letters sent in response to my submissions for publication.