It seems to me (or: I hope) that I have been gradually commencing to
understand your position. Probably you are currently looking at the
phenomenon of discussion from mostly statistical point of view joined, as
that often happens, with the theory of chances (hereof: "the classic bell
shape distribution", "risk of an event happening", "tossing a coin", etc).
If so, I was and am quite far away such a look at homeostasis. I take a
little interest in calculating a likelihood of achieving the homeostasis in
a given clinical situation or in the mankind population. I am rather
interested to know whether such a biological phenomenon really exists (is
not a "myth"). Of course, it would be interesting to know a "quantity of
homeostasis" in a patient which is sitting near my table ("where is
he/she -- in the middle of bell curve or somewhere around the tails?"). If
this is (or: will be) possible, I'll find how to use such data in my
practice or scientific meditations. However, since we have not yet similar
quantitative descriptions as to a given organism, it is much for me to know
that such phenomenon exists (by the way, I think this existance was proved
by means of statistical methods among other ones).
Regarding the word "relative". I used it exclusively in sense "not full",
"not absolute". I.e. I did mean an extent of achieving the homeostasis and
did not mean this word in its statistical sense (relativity of events).
The importance of a precise definition of the phenomena under investigation
is crucial to the quality of the research process not only in
epidemiological research. It is related to any research. As to the
Encyclopaedia Britannica's definition of homeostasis and other similar
general definitions, they are very important as from at least two points of
view: (1) they reflect a result of thousands of observations and conclusions
(by the way -- using statistical approaches too); (2) they are milestones of
scientific development, they attract investigators' attention to new
subjects and issues, they are ski-jumps of future discoveries (sorry for
this pathetics; I definitely dislike pathetics but the the item is too
general and important simultaneously).
And why you deem that the Britannica's definition is "not objective"?
Your point about continuum as a form of existing biological processes is
greatly essential, I think. This mathematical notion seems to be helping to
understand and explain any phenomenon taking into account that the object
has a non-discrete character with regards to its time and space variables.
As to your blood pressure example, you are obviously right. However we
fortunately produce diagnoses using not only mmHg numbers like 159 or 161.
Stanislav A. Korobov, MD, PhD
Physician-Physiotherapist
P.O.Box 7, Odessa, 65089, Ukraine
[log in to unmask]
|