The Wave Model for Capping and Cell Motions

[NeilC]

Ok so the cytoskeletal is The Establishment and doesn't have enough unique testable predictions to satisfy you. But your model doesn't either. So why is it better?

I can’t help but think that you have come up with a theory that could have something in it but might well be totally wrong. You don’t provide the testable predictions and experimental data requested of you so it’s not taken seriously so you then take umbrage with the entire scientific system because, in your view, the alternative theory hasn’t had to meet the standards asked of yours. You then seem to go off into the realms of philosophy, scientific methods etc to justify this. But the simple fact is, the cytoskeleton theory is the established theory and yours isn’t. If you want to push it off it’s perch then you need to satisfy your peers. Other scientists have done this. Theories have been replaced. It’s taken longer than it should in some cases but that’s the way it is. Science is conservative. It all seems like a well thought out but severe case of sour grapes.

 

[John Hewitt]

Ok so the cytoskeletal is The Establishment and doesn't have enough unique testable predictions to satisfy you. But your model doesn't either. So why is it better?

I can’t help but think that you have come up with a theory that could have something in it but might well be totally wrong. You don’t provide the testable predictions and experimental data requested of you so it’s not taken seriously so you then take umbrage with the entire scientific system because, in your view, the alternative theory hasn’t had to meet the standards asked of yours. You then seem to go off into the realms of philosophy, scientific methods etc to justify this. But the simple fact is, the cytoskeleton theory is the established theory and yours isn’t. If you want to push it off it’s perch then you need to satisfy your peers. Other scientists have done this. Theories have been replaced. It’s taken longer than it should in some cases but that’s the way it is. Science is conservative. It all seems like a well thought out but severe case of sour grapes.

You might want to look back at posting 35.

 

[Cynric]

I presume you didn't bother to read chapter 7 of my site, which lists the evidence supportive of the wave model.

Actually I did. The evidence appears to be:
- Fish swimming, cilia beating and flagella are examples of wave-like movements causing motion.
- A handful of papers describe wave-like motions on cell surfaces
- Waves and oscillations occur frequently in the biosphere
- You are angry that other scientists bias the cytoskeletal model

I have no antipathy towards the wave model. You may well be correct (it seems perfectly feasible to me, but then as others have pointed out, if the waves are generated as a consequence of cytoskeletal remodelling it's difficult to see how it's more than a refinement of the existing model).
My problem is with your approach. Everyone who passionately supports a given model is flabbergasted by the stupidity of the rest of the scientific establishment for not seeing sense. The only way to persuade others is by weight of evidence - enough evidence to convince an unreasonable judge. The evidence in Chapter 7 is barely enough to constitute a reasonable hypothesis in my opinion.

The point of Popper's logic, which you also ignore, is the need to cite negative, refutational evidence. The evidence refuting the cytoskeletal assembly model was cited on my web site - in some detail. I found it a shame that Dr. Richard was unable to find a review that addressed such lines of evidence and argument. I also found it a shame that he could find no paper that addressed the wave model which, along with the evidence that bears upon it, is the topic of this thread.

It would be nice to be able to include the sorts of caveats that used to be commonplace in scientific papers. I agree with you in this regard that the publishing habits of scientists have worstened in the last few decades. I suspect the selection pressure has come from excessive regard for journal impact factors.

Re your comments. Mathematics is a tool, it not a source of evidence, the micrographs shown in their paper have no obvious bearing on the mechanism these authors proposed. Furthermore, pharmacological or genetic disruption of motile proteins would be expected to disrupt cell motility regardless of its mechanism.

Experimental results which concur with the predictions of a mathematical model is most certainly evidence in favour of a hypothesis. If you prefer, you could frame it in terms of failure to disprove the postulated model.

It is not my wish to attack Pollard and Borisy but their paper does not present anything resembling a scientific case.

!

I do accuse my former colleagues of fraud and deceit, not simply because they engaged in such reviews but that they continued to do so into the teeth of protest, perfectly clear theoretical arguments and perfectly clear, observational evidence such as that listed on my site. Such conduct is not only discourteous, it is not science or logic by any criterion I will accept.

The blind fools.

I note that you do not refer to the evidence for the wave model or the refutations of the cytoskeletal model given in earlier chapters. As for your suggestion that I return to the laboratory and perform my own experiments - it seems to me that the evidential status of this field is perfectly clear and I see no purpose in reinventing the wheel. I would certainly not do so merely to entertain the kind of people who calculatedly ignore what is said to them.

That attitude is why people are so cool about your idea. Ideas are actually fairly commonplace. It is only in testing them that we can ever hope to advance our understanding. Also, your opinion that the evidence currently available is sufficient to make a judgement as to the mechanism of motility is, to be frank, unscientific. For example, here is a way to test the predictions of the wave model:

David Klenerman in the department of Chemistry at Cambridge has invented a method of imaging cell surfaces at high resolution. Basically, it is an electrode that measures tiny variations in conductance at the tip of a finely drawn micropipette. By scanning this micropipette over the cell surface he can deduce topology from variations in tip resistance.
If he held it in place over a moving amaeboid cell, your model would predict he should record wave-like displacements in the cell surface. Why not ask him if he'd be interested in testing it? Here are his contact details:

http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/staff/dk.html

 

[Dr Richard]

Hi John, if I could just ask for some clarification:

There is a common, apparent belief that scientists gather neutral data, more or less at random and a theory will emerge from the data but this not true.

Source? Reference?

Many of the published observations in this field are not such as to enable one to distinguish the different theories

Examples?

Where the cytoskeletal model is testable it has been tested and it has been refuted.

References?

Neither does that model cohere with well established, secure scientific results

Such as... references.....

By contrast, the assertion that muscle proteins are contractile and generate force by that contraction

I think I know what you mean to say by this, but for the sake of clarity would you be good enough to explain what actually happens when "muscle proteins" cause a "contraction"?

I believe I have every right to use them as inputs into and as evidence to support my own theorizing

.

But as others have pointed out, the examples you cite are equally consistent with a cytoskeletal model producing both movement and waves on the cell surface.

Finally, I would like to make a general comment about Popper's work, which I regard very highly and as seminal to an understanding science and the nature of logic. Nonetheless, I am aware that monay other workers act as if they believe Popper and his logic are nonsense - a tiresome interference with the *real* science that they do. In fact, there are grounds for thinking that people in general, not just scientists, have a problem with Popper's work. Some readers may know that there have been many psychological studies performed into the way people use Popper's logic. They can be found under the generic name "the Wason task," being named after Peter Wason, the UCL psychologist who initiated them. The general conclusion that emerges from these studies is that people very often seek confirmations of their own beliefs and are reluctant to seek discomfirmatory evidence, especially as it applies to their own preconceived ideas. People are cognitive misers who take the easy route in their thinking, looking for new approaches only when they cannot avoid doing so. This is the kind of thing leads to the phenomenon of confirmation bias.

The social psychological studies of Milgram, concerning authority, and Asch, about conformity, are also relevant in this context. People stick with their groups and conform to group beliefs, even when contrary evidence is perfectly clear. It does seem to me that this sort of thing occurs in science.

Unfortunately, Christophera uses very similar arguments, and they do not actually increase the validity of your case...

 

[John Hewitt]

Reply to Cynric

In reply to Cynric
I believe there were five lines of evidence cited in chapter 7. I judge that evidence to be superior to that for the alternatives.

In reply to your comment "it seems perfectly feasible to me, but then as others have pointed out, if the waves are generated as a consequence of cytoskeletal remodelling it's difficult to see how it's more than a refinement of the existing model." I am not aware that anybody has made this comment but it would be very characteristic of the behaviour of these people to start pretending that the wave model is just a special case of the cytoskeletal model. I say again that the cytoskeletal model is not one model, it is a vacuous agglomeration of different interpretations. Force generation by assembly is a common one, railways lines is another. What always repelled me most about many of these ideas was that they made the cytoskeleton into a data processing device. But, as I say, I would be in no ways surprised to see people in the field start rushing around and pretending that wave driving was always what they really meant. In fact, it wasn't.

I judge many of the publications in this field to have been systematically deceptive, with three being reported as two. Had the authors of those papers so chosen, there is no serious doubt that they would have been permitted to report their fields truthfully but the fact is that they chose and were permitted to publish falsehoods. Nothing I do today and no attitude I adopt today could possibly account for behaviour that has been ongoing for more than twenty years. You should try to distinguish cause from effect.

I note your suggestion that I contact your friend in the chemistry department, which department I obviously know. His approach is certainly interesting and appropriate and I would encourage him to pursue it but, as I said before, I do not intend joining him. In the first place, the practical difficulties associated with reentering a laboratory after so much time would be significant, especially as I would get no cooperation from the institution in which I was attempting the work. Also, my own thinking has moved on and my primary research interest today, while it began with this field, has metamorphosed into evolutionary theory and the implications of bioepistemic evolution. I intend that it will remain so.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I say again that the cytoskeletal model is not one model, it is a vacuous agglomeration of different interpretations.

May I suggest that part of the problem is getting too hung up on the ord 'model'. You suggest that the 'cytoskeletal model' is too ill-defined to make proper predictions. It seems to others that your 'wave model' is similarly poorly-specified. It is thus a bit pointless having a fight to the death over something that is so nebulous is defies adequate labelling.

The kind of criticisms you make of the cytoskeletal model are of just the same quality as those levelled at your pet model and all these criticisms are valid because the field is too immature, so everyone is still at the descriptive stage in exploration of the field, and yes in retrospect whatever turns out to be the finalset of mechanisms everyone will be able to look back and claim they were right because in some part it is quite likely that everyone is partly right. Having a fight over absolute right and wrong at thie stage is certainly premature and probably would never be appropriate.

One other thing, you have said in the past that part of your motivation for taking on the 'establishment' was to ensure that you were given the credit for your ideas. While accepting that everyone like recognition for work they do in whatever field they work in this does seem to belie a failure to accept that very few genuine quantum jumps are made in science. Almost all progress is by tiny incremental steps and jumping up and down demanding uniquely identifiable credit for on of those steps does not really seem the best way to work. These are the fine points of cell biology not the disvovery of the heliocentric model of the Solar System and it would be rare indeed in modern science for anyone to be able to claim sole credit for any new discovery however big or small.

This is why, whatever the rights and wrongs of the detail of your argument, I think many of us share a sense of 'so what?' in relation to its outcome.

 

[John Hewitt]

You suggest that the 'cytoskeletal model' is too ill-defined to make proper predictions. It seems to others that your 'wave model' is similarly poorly-specified. It is thus a bit pointless having a fight to the death over something that is so nebulous is defies adequate labelling.

The kind of criticisms you make of the cytoskeletal model are of just the same quality as those levelled at your pet model and all these criticisms are valid because the field is too immature, so everyone is still at the descriptive stage in exploration of the field, and yes in retrospect whatever turns out to be the finalset of mechanisms everyone will be able to look back and claim they were right because in some part it is quite likely that everyone is partly right. Having a fight over absolute right and wrong at thie stage is certainly premature and probably would never be appropriate.

One other thing, you have said in the past that part of your motivation for taking on the 'establishment' was to ensure that you were given the credit for your ideas. While accepting that everyone like recognition for work they do in whatever field they work in this does seem to belie a failure to accept that very few genuine quantum jumps are made in science. Almost all progress is by tiny incremental steps and jumping up and down demanding uniquely identifiable credit for on of those steps does not really seem the best way to work. These are the fine points of cell biology not the disvovery of the heliocentric model of the Solar System and it would be rare indeed in modern science for anyone to be able to claim sole credit for any new discovery however big or small.

This is why, whatever the rights and wrongs of the detail of your argument, I think many of us share a sense of 'so what?' in relation to its outcome.

Such waffle!

It is a fact that people who claim to be advocates of "The cytoskeletal model" do talk about several different mechanisms, besides the reassembly process that Pollard and Borisy seemed to believe in. In other words, there is no general agreement about what mechanism is referred to by the phrase, "the cytoskeletal model." In consequence, that theory does not really exist as a predictive instrument - it is vacuous. The mechanism of wave driving is not ill defined - even John Maddox acknowledged that it was a discrete mechanism. He simply insisted that, as a theory, the wave model was about as likely to be correct as proposing that the moon was made of green cheese.

That comment, although articulated by Maddox, essentially summarized the position consistently taken by leaders in this field and by the institutions they represented. And now your telling me that these are just minor distinctions?

Such waffle!

 

[John Hewitt]

Reply to Dr. Richard Part 3

Theoretical Arguments - Evolution and Thermodynamics


As one looks through these postings it is nice to see that some people acknowledge parsimony as an issue but there is at least on person who has posted to this thread, who seems to believe that arguments from evolution are mere arguments from analogy.

Evolutionary theory predicts the reuse and recurrence of analogous mechanisms of motion. It predicts their reuse because evolution is thought to modify what already exists rather than create mechanisms de novo. It predicts their recurrence because, in analogous situations, convergent evolution is expected to find similar solutions to similar problems, even if the starting points diverge. The convergence of such mechanisms would very probably reflect the thermodynamic efficiency of the single solution thus found. So, evolution and thermodynamics give us two reasons to find analogies when we compare mechanisms pf movement.

Hence, it is true that one could imagine two developmental phenotypes, doing the same thing by completely different mechanisms. One could, if one were so inclined, imagine completely different mechanisms of particle movement in the lining of the lung than on the surface of fibroblasts. One could imagine wave motions moving particles in the lung lining and particles being moved by some other mechanisms - whatever mechanism is current flavour of the month for the cytoskeletal model - occurring in amoeboid cells.

But I would make two points in reply to that notion.

First, I think it is unparsimonious to propose that similar operational outcomes are achieved by different mechanisms in two cells that have the same genotype but developmentally disparate phenotypes. I accept that such a situation is not impossible but I believe it to be unlikely because it would add mechanistic complexity to our understanding of living things. This is not some cheap argument from analogy, I am pointing out that an important evolutionary principle is being breached here. I argue that the improbability of such a situation creates a burden of proof resting on the shoulders of those scientists who do assert that two separate mechanisms apply in such a situation to show why this added complexity is needed. To the best of my knowledge, no scientist, anywhere, has attempted to make that case.

Second, I suggest that the argument from parsimony is much stronger at the level of individual proteins than it is at the level of the whole cell. A cell makes a great many different proteins and minor changes in their relative concentrations can easily give rise to the different cellular phenotypes that arise in development. At the level of proteins things are different. The range of variability for a protein will be much narrower than for a cell. It is very difficult to see how or why proteins could do the same job in two different ways in two different cells. In muscle, we know beyond doubt that muscle proteins generate force by contraction. In short, muscle proteins are contractile proteins. Now, if you look at the Pollard and Borisy paper, you see that they assume that the muscle proteins found in amoeboid cells generate force, not by contractility, but by differential assembly and disassembly. In other words, they are saying not simply that the leading edge grows while the trailing edge shrinks but that this differential growth is not a mere response to the movement of the cell but is actually what drives the movement.

To my mind this is a very unparsimonious claim. To my mind it is not simply a breach of an analogy, it breaches an evolutionary principle. Again, one cannot deny that, in principle, differential assembly could be a force generating mechanism but why assume that these proteins generate force by a completely new mechanism? Why not make the parsimonious assumption and assume that these proteins do in amoeboid cells something similar to what they do in muscle?

In fact, workers in this field not only fail to explain this highly unparsimonious step, they fail to acknowledge that there is anything remarkable about the assumptions they are making. They decline even to acknowledge the existence of the more parsimonious mechanism and, in response to queries, they set out to dump the burden of proof onto others. That failure, which is especially visible among British scientists, looks suspiciously like a policy. So, the question is not just, "why assume such a completely new mechanism" but "why assume it and then refuse to discuss or explain such assumptions?"

 

[Cuddles]

I believe there were five lines of evidence cited in chapter 7. I judge that evidence to be superior to that for the alternatives.

You keep refering to chapter 7, and appear to have ignored my previous comments on your "evidence", so here is a detailed analysis of this chapter.

7.1 - Introduction to the wave model. No detailed description or evidence given.

7.2 - Description of cilliated cells. Irrelevant to the wave model.

7.3 - Description of observations of waves in mammalian cells, apparently well known and not disputed. No evidence for the wave model.

7.4 - A guess that because we have seen oscillations and waves in cells, there must be lots more that we haven't seen - no evidence to support this. No evidence for the wave model.

7.5 - Description of calcium waves. Again, not disputed and seems irrelevant to your theory.

7.6 - This paper says that "These results strongly suggest that neither the motions of membrane proteins driven by the cytoskeleton nor other possible factors produce a bulk flow of membrane lipid". In addition to the part you quote it seems that this paper does support your theory more than the others, but since they were looking for entirely different effects it is not possible to draw any solid conclusions from it. (The abstact can be found here, about 1/3 of the way down.)

7.7 - A prediction made by the wave model, but with no suggestion it has ever been tested. No evidence for the wave model.

7.8 - A discussion of an experiment where preventing the cytoskeleton working correctly reduced motility and prevented capping. You present this as evidence for the wave model, although the author presents it as evidence against.

7.9 - A statement that the wave model has not been discussed much, and a summary of a few points criticising it. No evidence for the wave model.

7.10 - A complete failiure to respond to the criticism and an apparent lack of understanding of the scientific method. While you cannot prove a model correct by positive observation, your statement that "It is not really correct to be seeking evidence "for" a model" is simply nonsense. That is the only way of finding things out - predict something and then look to see if it happens, if it does, it supports the model. No evidence for the wave model.

7.11 - A description of the fact that very few people are researching your model. No evidence for the wave model.

In summary, in this whole chapter, which you keep citing as containing your evidence, there are possibly two papers containg evidence, one of which is presented by the author as evidence against your model. So, in almost 30 years since you started this work (1978 according to your introduction) you can present us with one (1) paper which supports your theory. I probably don't need to add that people keep asking for you to provide evidence precisely because they have read this chapter and failed to find any, not because they are ignoring it.

 

[NeilC]

You might want to look back at posting 35.

I did.

It's another poster saying you've not provided enough evidence. How does that help?

 

[John Hewitt]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for this. I will reply to the pertinent sections in turn.

[/FONT]

You keep refering to chapter 7, and appear to have ignored my previous comments on your "evidence", so here is a detailed analysis of this chapter.

7.1 - Introduction to the wave model. No detailed description or evidence given.

That's right, it was an introduction.

7.2 - Description of cilliated cells. Irrelevant to the wave model.

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, photographs of waves on cells are not evidence for waves on cells.[/FONT]

7.3 - Description of observations of waves in mammalian cells, apparently well known and not disputed. No evidence for the wave model.

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, widely published and undisputed observations of waves on cells is not evidence for waves on cells.[/FONT]

7.4 - A guess that because we have seen oscillations and waves in cells, there must be lots more that we haven't seen - no evidence to support this. No evidence for the wave model.

[FONT=&quot]I apologize. I now realize I should have included photographs of every known cell type on earth.[/FONT]

7.5 - Description of calcium waves. Again, not disputed and seems irrelevant to your theory.

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, observations of calcium waves on "all or virtually all eukaryotic cells" is not evidence that cell waves might exist on a wide variety of cell types.
[/FONT]

7.6 - This paper says that "These results strongly suggest that neither the motions of membrane proteins driven by the cytoskeleton nor other possible factors produce a bulk flow of membrane lipid". In addition to the part you quote it seems that this paper does support your theory more than the others, but since they were looking for entirely different effects it is not possible to draw any solid conclusions from it. (The abstact can be found here, about 1/3 of the way down.)

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, observations of dramatic waves moving in concert with particles should not be seen as evidence for wave driving since the authors, themselves, did not interpret their results that way.[/FONT]

7.7 - A prediction made by the wave model, but with no suggestion it has ever been tested. No evidence for the wave model.

I note that, in your opinion, observations of stop start particulate motion and of occasional reversals of motion (such as might be seen on the reverse side of a wave) are not a test of the wave model.

7.8 - A discussion of an experiment where preventing the cytoskeleton working correctly reduced motility and prevented capping. You present this as evidence for the wave model, although the author presents it as evidence against.

Actually, it is a fact that these authors would not explain the situation and I understand that it is possible to delete many of the genes supposedly associated with the cytoskeleton with little or no effect on motility but, by all means, if it matters to you, get the facts from the horse's mouth.

7.9 - A statement that the wave model has not been discussed much, and a summary of a few points criticising it. No evidence for the wave model.

[FONT=&quot]I now understand that you feel I should have ignored published criticism of the wave model. I myself believed that some people would have required such responses. [/FONT]

7.10 - A complete failiure to respond to the criticism and an apparent lack of understanding of the scientific method. While you cannot prove a model correct by positive observation, your statement that "It is not really correct to be seeking evidence "for" a model" is simply nonsense. That is the only way of finding things out - predict something and then look to see if it happens, if it does, it supports the model. No evidence for the wave model.

I applied Popper's logic, as best I could, but I now understand that you do not – use logic that is – Popper's logic.

7.11 - A description of the fact that very few people are researching your model. No evidence for the wave model.

That's right, it was a concluding section.

In summary, in this whole chapter, which you keep citing as containing your evidence, there are possibly two papers containg evidence, one of which is presented by the author as evidence against your model. So, in almost 30 years since you started this work (1978 according to your introduction) you can present us with one (1) paper which supports your theory. I probably don't need to add that people keep asking for you to provide evidence precisely because they have read this chapter and failed to find any, not because they are ignoring it.

If I may say so, I felt that your comments well exemplified the level of reasoning within this field.

 

[Cuddles]

That's right, it was an introduction.

Amazing, we agree about something.

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, photographs of waves on cells are not evidence for waves on cells.[/FONT]

You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting. All the models allow for waves on cells, but this provides no evidence for your model that the waves are the main caused of moving particles around.

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, widely published and undisputed observations of waves on cells is not evidence for waves on cells.[/FONT]

Again, waves on cells are not the issue. The issue is your model, which is not about the existence of waves that are also allowed in other models.

[FONT=&quot]I apologize. I now realize I should have included photographs of every known cell type on earth.[/FONT]

No, what you should do is not make unsupported assumptions just because you like the idea. If there is no evidence, you should say that instead of pretending there is.

[FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, observations of calcium waves on "all or virtually all eukaryotic cells" is not evidence that cell waves might exist on a wide variety of cell types.[/FONT]

Again, not the issue.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I note that, in your opinion, observations of dramatic waves moving in concert with particles should not be seen as evidence for wave driving since the authors, themselves, did not interpret their results that way.[/FONT]

Are you serious? I said this was evidence in your favour and you still argue with me? No wonder no-one pays any attention to your ideas.

I note that, in your opinion, observations of stop start particulate motion and of occasional reversals of motion (such as might be seen on the reverse side of a wave) are not a test of the wave model.

Vague predictions are useless without specifics. If you think the motion will stop and start, you should say how and how often. The graph you provide has very erratic steps, which would not seem to be consistent with regular waves. If your model predicts this, you should have said this, otherwise it in no way supports your position.

Actually, it is a fact that these authors would not explain the situation and I understand that it is possible to delete many of the genes supposedly associated with the cytoskeleton with little or no effect on motility but, by all means, if it matters to you, get the facts from the horse's mouth.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Do you agree that this is somewhat ambigous as to whether it supports you or not, and that more research would be needed to say for sure?

[FONT=&quot]I now understand that you feel I should have ignored published criticism of the wave model. I myself believed that some people would have required such responses. [/FONT]

What the hell are you talking about? I gave a brief summary of the section. Do you disagree with this summary? Do you somehow believe there was evidence for your model in there? Do you somehow imagine that in your strange little fantasy world I was saying that you shouldn't have included this section?

I applied Popper's logic, as best I could, but I now understand that you do not – use logic that is – Popper's logic.

No, you gave some bizzare argument that you have no evidence because you think you don't need to support your model and instead should focus on eliminating every other model. This is why no-one considers your model, you are trying to prove yourself right by proving them wrong, rather than trying to show that your model has any merit. This is much the same argument used by creationists, they think that if they can show evolution is flawed, they must be right, without noticing that even if evolution were wrong, their ideas are still nonsense.

That's right, it was a concluding section.

Excellent, we agree on two out of eleven sections.

If I may say so, I felt that your comments well exemplified the level of reasoning within this field.

So my reasoning is on a level with the main researchers in a scientific field, rather than on a level with a bitter man who couldn't get a job after his first research post and whos ideas are not even considered by anyone else in the field. I take that as a complement.

Do you have any answer to my point that, at best, you have provided three papers as evidence? I don't believe that two of them support you, but even if I concede that it's a pretty poor showing. Do you really not have anything else you can show us?

 

[wollery]

 

[John Hewitt]

So my reasoning is on a level with the main researchers in a scientific field, rather than on a level with a bitter man who couldn't get a job after his first research post and whos ideas are not even considered by anyone else in the field. I take that as a complement.

Do you have any answer to my point that, at best, you have provided three papers as evidence? I don't believe that two of them support you, but even if I concede that it's a pretty poor showing. Do you really not have anything else you can show us?

Very ad hominem remarks though, I guess there was an element of ad hominem in my comments to you. In any event, may I suggest you think about the logic of the situation and stop calling me names. You might also want to remember that the colleagues with whom you are proud to be compared have repeatedly published lies in the scientific literature.

In the first place, waves on cells are not part of any model except the wave model. The cytoskeletal model is loose and vacuous but I have never seen anyone try to claim that waves are part of that model. Waves are not part of any expression of the cytoskeletal model I have ever seen. If you think otherwise, give me a reference.

The wave model itself was published in the scientific literature years ago and I do not intend trying to persuade some peer reviewer to do the same again. Workers in the field rejected the wave model by ignoring it. I do not understand the basis for their rejection of it. They refused to tell me their reasons or to take part in discussion with me. One journal that has published very prominently in this field is "Nature" whose former editor in chief is Dr. John Maddox. He compares the wave model with the notion that the moon is made of green cheese. That commentary will not simply be what Maddox thinks; given the interlacing networks of contacts that make up science, he will have been given advice by his contacts in the field, either from Cambridge or elsewhere. The bottom line of their claims and behaviour is that they regard the wave model as completely stupid. They think that it is a barmy of the wall idea and that there is absolutely no element of the wave model that is worth anything at all. That is the message they deliver and which they clearly want to deliver. That is the message that chapter 7 replies to.


In writing chapter 7 I was not trying to dot an i or cross a t but to show that each element of the wave model is consistent with general theory and can be evidenced. To do that, I needed to show that waves do exist on cells, that they are widespread, that they can interact with particles and that observations of particles on real cells are consistent with wave driving as being the driver causing their movement.

In reality, the wave model is not and never was a green cheese theory but that kind of empty dismissal is very much part of its history. To my mind the wave model is undoubtedly correct but, when it is eventually recognized as such, it will not have emerged through a gradual refinement of the cytoskeletal model and I will not pretend that it will or did.

At the moment, I think one can say, in general terms, that the wave model is correct but your intimation that there has been little experimental work directed to the wave model itself is true. That has been neither my choice nor my fault. I think that experimental work should be directed to the wave model itself so that one could elaborate its quantitative details. One would like estimates for things like wavelength, amplitude and frequency, the electrical relationships implied and the effective mechanical properties of the oscillating medium. However, I don't have that kind of data. With it, one could think about more detailed calculations; without it one is just looking at general relationships. If you really think that more detail is currently available, then OK. Just name yourself and show that you know something about this field. Then join me on a professional forum where you put your name on what you are saying and you back up your own claims.

 

[Dr Richard]

Dear John,

I see you are ignoring my previous post.

One of the guiding principles of this forum is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

One of the reasons people have not agreed with your wave theory is that you can provide no evidence to back it up.

If I was an editor of Nature, I would want to see such evidence before I allowed a theory to be published in my journal. I do not see why you have a hard time accepting this.

Could I ask what your job is currently? And when did you leave scientific research? Most of your references are 20-30 years out of date.

I also note that you have failed to answer any of the questions detailed above and have not provided a detailed criticism of the references I published for you.

These are exciting times in cell biology and many new techniques have arisen which simply did not exist when you wrote your original wave theory. Our understanding of cell movement and adhesion is far from complete, but we now know considerable amounts about, for instance, catenin-cadherin-actin interactions that underly cellular adhesion and movement.

The Cell Migration Gateway is a fantastic resoource.

Also, you have made several statements along the lines of

the colleagues with whom you are proud to be compared have repeatedly published lies in the scientific literature.

Care to provide any evidence?

 

[John Hewitt]

Dear John,

I see you are ignoring my previous post.

One of the guiding principles of this forum is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

One of the reasons people have not agreed with your wave theory is that you can provide no evidence to back it up.

If I was an editor of Nature, I would want to see such evidence before I allowed a theory to be published in my journal. I do not see why you have a hard time accepting this.

Could I ask what your job is currently? And when did you leave scientific research? Most of your references are 20-30 years out of date.

I also note that you have failed to answer any of the questions detailed above and have not provided a detailed criticism of the references I published for you.

These are exciting times in cell biology and many new techniques have arisen which simply did not exist when you wrote your original wave theory. Our understanding of cell movement and adhesion is far from complete, but we now know considerable amounts about, for instance, catenin-cadherin-actin interactions that underly cellular adhesion and movement.

The Cell Migration Gateway is a fantastic resoource.

Also, you have made several statements along the lines of

Care to provide any evidence?

Thank you for your comments. I didn't reply to that posting because I hadn't actually finished replying to your first posting. You may recall that I intended to give four replies of which I have so far given only three. Thank you for the link, it is good, though I cannot access many of the papers there.

I note what you say about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. I have seen John Maddox use that same phrase when dismissing such things as homeopathy, creationism or morphic fields - I presume you intended the comparison but I reject it. Indeed, I think you ought to apply it the the cytoskeletal model.

In any case, since we lack someone to be the judge of extraordinariness, let us stick with older and better ideas - like Occam's razor and the concept of parsimony. Occam's razor says that theories should not elaborate entities unnecessarily and parsimony requires that a theory should depart as little as possible from well established understanding. The wave model follows those principles and therefore should not be seen as extraordinary in your sense.

The wave model is parsimonious and I am not elaborating entities unnecessarily. Cell surface waves are not just a postulate they are also an observed fact. Wave driving is not just a postulate - in many physical situations it too is a fact, as it is in some cellular situations. It is not extraordinary or unparsimonious to suggest that amoeboid cells behave as do some other cell types. I was not breaching Occam's razor by making such a proposal.

By contrast, the cytoskeletal model, as elaborated in the reference you provided, is a breach of parsimony. It proposes a mechanism of movement without parallel anywhere in the known biosphere - and you call MY claims extraordinary? Moreover, the cytoskeletal model seems to incorporate an ever growing number of new proteins into its extraordinary mechanism, usually with no real data about their in vivo function. This elaboration of entities is clearly a breach of Occam's razor. If you really believe in the cytoskeletal model, the least you should want to see is progress toward defining a minimum set of proteins needed for motile function.

You ask for evidence of (British) scientists lying in the scientific literature. I wonder about this question. My web site is a detailed documentation of that lying – so why, exactly, are you asking me to repeat it here? My site was written with serious concern for British libel laws. Hence, what I wrote was as accurate as I was able to make it. I did invite the people concerned to reply or offer corrections but none have yet done so in any substantial sense. The invitation remains open.

My web site notes that specific, named scientists have published lies in the scientific literature. The lie in question is reporting that two theories had been proposed in this field when in fact three theories had been proposed. My site notes that the scientists in question demonstrably knew that that number was three. It also notes that, because of their misrepresentation, these scientists were able to draw a conclusion that would have been unsupportable had they reported their field truthfully – namely that they were able to claim that their favoured theory, the cytoskeletal model, was correct.

This lying seemed centered on Britain because, although the wave model was cited 30 or 40 times, all those citations came from overseas. I know of no British scientist ever acknowledging it. (One "Nature" letter, written from the MRC, does cite it but I believe those authors were American.)

Amongst other things, my site describes the prominent role played in this misrepresentation by the journal "Nature." It describes how it’s then editor, Dr. John Maddox, refused to correct these false reports. His letter to me is included on my web site - including his comparison of the wave model to the proposal that the moon is made of green cheese.

However, I am not going to rewrite my web site here. I do not want to simply rephrase something I wrote with a concern for legal accuracy. I hope that my web site is easily navigable and, if you seriously want what you have asked for, I suggest you go to the relevant sections and read them.

Thank you for explaining that your work is frightfully up-to-date and I note your insinuations that I am not. It seems extraordinary that you think three has become two during that time - or am I missing your point?

Rest assured that I am up to date enough to distinguish a meaningful explanation from waffle. I note that techniques have improved but nonetheless, our present understanding of this field seems to be exactly what it was when I wrote my wave paper. Maybe that is because the modern ideas described in your reference are actually rather extraordinary - in your sense of the word. That would not be surprising - they do have a pack of lies as their foundation stone, don't they?

I still have to write my fourth reply to your reference but I shall do so later. It really concerns my more recent work - bioepistemic evolution and its relevance to questions in cell biology.

 

[NeilC]

In this case it's easy. The extraordinary claim is the one that goes against current accepted thinking i.e. yours. It doesn't need an impartial judge. Yours is the new theory. You can't expect to replace accepted thinking without providing solid evidence. Appealing to (your interpretation of) Occams razor is clearly not enough. Occam is often a useful guideline but isn't evidence.

You get asked direct questions and often ignore them, answer a different one or merely suggest that the question is better aimed at the opposing theory because you can't provide your own evidence.

It's pretty lame reading to be frank.

Life's too short to debate in this non-productive fashion. Thankfully I can just stop and think about something else. You apparantly can't.

 

[John Hewitt]

In this case it's easy. The extraordinary claim is the one that goes against current accepted thinking i.e. yours. It doesn't need an impartial judge. Yours is the new theory. You can't expect to replace accepted thinking without providing solid evidence. Appealing to (your interpretation of) Occams razor is clearly not enough. Occam is often a useful guideline but isn't evidence.

You get asked direct questions and often ignore them, answer a different one or merely suggest that the question is better aimed at the opposing theory because you can't provide your own evidence.

It's pretty lame reading to be frank.

Life's too short to debate in this non-productive fashion. Thankfully I can just stop and think about something else. You apparantly can't.

This thread is clearly and explicitly asking for the reasoning that leads to the rejection of the wave model. I am sorry you don't seem to understand that. Nobody on this thread has yet attempted give such an argument.


I believe I stated Occam's razor reasonably well and, to the best of my knowledge. The principles of scientific logic were outlined perfectly well by Popper and he supported Occam's razor. You cannot rewrite the rules of logic or the rules of arithmetic. The difference between two theories and three theories is a matter of fact not of scientific opinion or editorial judgment. There are three theories in this field and intentionally reporting three theories as two theories is a deliberate lie that can only be expunged by divulging the reasoning that led to the rejection of the wave model.


My arguments and the evidence used to support the wave model are given on my web site in such detail that further arguments and evidence are basically irrelevant. What is genuinely missing from this thread, and from the scientific literature, is any sensible attempt to justify the rejection of the wave model. References that do not even discuss the wave model or endless requests for clarification are hardly likely to resolve the problem.

Finally, the notion of "extraordinary claims" trotted out here is not an accepted part of scientific logic; indeed, it seems to me so constructed that those in power could use it to justify any kind of mindless faith. What is more, they do.

 

[John Hewitt]

Here then is a reply to your earlier questions, which you accuse me of ignoring.

"There is a common, apparent belief that scientists gather neutral data, more or less at random and a theory will emerge from the data but this not true." You want references on this – this is a common claim in scientific philosophy and not important to this thread. I am not going to look out a reference on it - believe otherwise if you will.

"Many of the published observations in this field are not such as to enable one to distinguish the different theories." You ask for references. The review to which you gave a link was an example. So far as I could see none of the data in it contradicted the wave model. The classic example was the Sheetz papers published in "Nature" in the early nineties, the references are on my site. These papers claimed to resolve this long standing controversy but, in fact, the reported data was just as supportive of the wave model as the cytoskeletal model, if not more so.

In reply to your request for references to my claim that "Where the cytoskeletal model is testable it has been tested and it has been refuted." I would reply that Bretscher spent years pointing out the falsifications of the cytoskeletal model. I have provide two chapters on this on my web site - and I give references in those chapters. Post 39 on this thread addresses this.


You note my comment "Neither does that model (the cytoskeletal model) cohere with well established, secure scientific results." I have several times pointed out that nowhere in the biosphere has a mechanism of movement comparable with that described in the Pollard and Borisy paper ever been demonstrated. I cannot give you a reference to a negative.

In reply to your "By contrast, the assertion that muscle proteins are contractile and generate force by that contraction" where you say " I think I know what you mean to say by this, but for the sake of clarity would you be good enough to explain what actually happens when "muscle proteins" cause a "contraction"?
The contractility of muscle protein is described in numerous books. The oscillatory nature of such contraction is documented in, for example, the insect flight muscle. Contractile waves are known in, for example, the heart. You should know about the role of calcium and waves of calcium permeability across membranes in such matters. It is good to hear that you think you know what muscle contraction is but I think this sort of stuff is standard textbook, which leaves me wondering why think you know what I mean. Perhaps you do not address the central question. I am trying to elicit the observational evidence that justifies the rejection of the wave model.

I note, again, that neither the cytosjeletal model nor the flow model predict or require waves on cells. The existence of waves on cells is consistent with the requirements of the wave model and not any other model.
In reply to "Unfortunately, Christophera uses very similar arguments, and they do not actually increase the validity of your case..." I do not mind someone else using arguments that I agree with but I do not know Christophera at all. I do not think he is a major scientific philosopher but please give me a reference.

Please note that I have decided not to give the fourth reply to the paper you provided.

Would you kindly list your understandings of the observational evidence that justifies the rejection of the wave model?

 

[John Hewitt]

For Dr. Richard

Would you kindly list your understandings of the observational evidence that justifies the rejection of the wave model?

Will you be answering that question?