The Battle between the two heavyweight, mailbase titans has begun. I don't
have clue what Korobov was writing about, but found it interesting anyhow.
Let's see what Dr Mel reply is. Will he or will he not outsmart Dr
Korobov?... Stay tuned folks!
Isaac
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Stanislav A. Korobov [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sendt: 9. januar 2001 19:49
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: The Myth of Homeostasis
As I have noted, Dr Mel C Siff likes Ilya Prigogine's works. And dislikes
the notion of homeostasis. The like is understood for me but the dislike is
not.
As I know, the notion of homeostasis was offered in 1929 by Walter B.
Cannon, an outstanding American physiologist, to describe biological
mechanisms reacting to alterations of temperature and chemical state of the
organism, and compensating these alterations by equal (in magnitude or
functional importance) ones of the contrary direction. He implied under
homeostasis those "co-ordinated physiological processes that maintain the
most of steady states of the organism". He used another non-ordinary
notion -- about the living organism's inner medium ("milieu interieur") --
which had been developed by another great physiologist (French), C.Bernard.
The last had first pointed out that milieu interieur must be constant under
any changes of the external medium. Then W.B.Cannon showed that unity and
stability of the organism's milieu interieur have been maintained by the
chain of complex and interrelated processes, among which the
sympatho-adrenal system's function plays an important role. I think the
details have been better expounded in his main-in-life book [Cannon W.B. The
Wisdom of the Body. New York: W.W.Norton and Co., 1932]. It is essential to
add that Prof.H.Selye created his stress theory using the notion of
homeostasis as one of the key bricks.
According to one of modern encyclopaedical definitions, homeostasis is
"relative dynamical constancy of composition and properties of inner medium,
and steadiness of main physiological functions of the organism". If so, we
have been dealing with this "myth" every day, even every second. We'll die
simply without this "myth". Of course, if you mean under homeostasis the
absolute (with preciseness of 0.000...) and superlongterm (for centuries...)
steady state, you are about a great mistake because it is definitely a
"myth". However I do not think that W.Cannon meant such ideal state as a
real physiological one. It seems that he offered the notion of homeostasis
to provide us with a theoretical, schematic explanation of real,
non-mythical phenomena.
Whether the notion of skyline (the line of horizon) is a "myth"? You can
really see it from your current place, you can sit in your car and go to it
but you never reach it. Why that unknown man offered this notion? Because
he/she had seen it and was trying to describe the world surrounding him/her.
W.Cannon was a classical scientist, a representative of traditional,
non-"alternative" school of medicine; he used real facts and
scientifically-grounded approaches to make his conclusions.
By the way, Dr Mel C Siff uses the "alternative health professions" term in
his "The Myth of Homeostasis" e-mail. In this relation, I always remember
the Prof.D.S.Sarkisov's article named "Medical Science and Pseudoscience"
(unfortunately I have it in Russian only) published in "Magnetology" Journal
(Vitebsk, Belarus') in 1991 (#1); a truncated version -- in "Physician"
Journal (Russia) of 1990 (July). There is such marked phrase in that article
(in my translation to English): "... such terms as 'non-traditional',
'alternative' medicine and similar ones ... are meaningless since only sole
medicine exists -- scientific -- and, therefore, the its alternative may be
only pseudoscientific medicine... ".
I tnink W.Cannon was also trying to describe scientifically that state,
which our organism is aimed at in order to be healthy, to live eventually.
And he had made his description splendidly. We cannot exist without our
tending to this state, without our relative (nothing is absolute!) successes
in its reaching. Is the ABSOLUTE homeostasis of the living organism a
"myth"? Certainly -- yes. And we, as practicians, are rather not needing in
it. Is a RELATIVE homeostasis of the living organism a "myth"? Definitely --
no. And our main aim (as practicians, again) is to do so that our "living
patient" would be as close as possible to this state! In this case he/she
will be in the most healthy of all imaginable his/her states. Nota bene
again: homeostasis is a RELATIVE DYNAMICAL constancy! Is this a "myth"? No,
it is a reality.
I would say that the ABSOLUTE homeostasis of the living organism is its
death while a RELATIVE homeostasis of the living organism is its life. By
the way, since the death of the living organism is also reality, then such
"deathly" ABSOLUTE homeostasis is not a "myth" too. It seems to be very real
as from all REAL view-points!
Dr Mel C Siff writes that "ideas on homeostasis are dinosaurs from outdated
science of the past". I.e.: "they are doomed to die". Maybe. Will see.
N.Kopernik (Copernicus) also offered ideas regarding the planets' turning
that were "doomed to die" in Church's opinion, and even "prohibited" during
two centuries. However, today, do you consider Kopernik's ideas as
"dinosaurs from outdated science"?
About Ilya Prigogine. As I know, he is a physicist and a physical chemist.
Not biologist. He has achieved really outstanding results in non-equilibrium
thermodynamics. His most known achievement is, propably, the "Prigogine's
theorem" which he had successfully demonstrated in 1947. This theorem is
following (in my translation to English): "under external conditions
hindering the system to achieve an equilibrium state, a stationary state of
the system is corresponding to the minimal production of entropy". This is
very interesting, of course, and, perhaps, has sensible theoretical
importance, but who can tell me, how is this related to the human organism
or, at least, to organisms of warm-blooded animals?! Whether such relation
is anyhow proved? As far as I know, Ilya Prigogine was trying, for example,
to use such thermodynamical characteristic as dSi/dt (the intensity of
entropy production) to describe such biological processes as aging, seasonal
bird migrations and others!.. (I found a criticism of this in the
A.G.Pasynskii's manual on Biophysical Chemistry of 1968; Moscow). If similar
extrapolations are permissible, why not to use in physiology such abstractio
ns as homeostasis?
Sorry for this long letter. I understand that it is hard to read, however
the topic is too difficult (at least -- for me) to write shortly.
Especially, in non-native language.
My best regards,
Stanislav A. Korobov, MD, PhD
Physician-Physiotherapist
P.O.Box 7, Odessa, 65089, Ukraine
[log in to unmask]
