Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Tips 'n Tricks
New Milking System (15% more milk, fat)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Domjan" data-source="post: 375463" data-attributes="member: 6102"><p>Observation or physiological theories? (6th part) </p><p></p><p>An interesting and well known story: </p><p></p><p>If you were a physiologist/medical expert then what would you choose? </p><p>The long-standard teaching in medicine is that "the stomach is sterile and nothing grows there because of corrosive gastric juices", but you do not know adequate examine about this widely believed theory. A pathologist says "there are bacteria in the stomach, I have found it, I have the evidence and it causes the ulcers that could be cured by treatment with cheap antibiotic medicine instead of expensive operations". </p><p></p><p>A, I will disapprove the explanation of the pathologist and I'll follow the accepted theory and I suggest the operations. </p><p></p><p>B, I will examine the stomach, it is easy, cheap. Every student is able to do a bacteriological test, too. </p><p></p><p>Mr. Warren (Nobel Prize winner, 2005): "So everybody believed there were no bacteria in the stomach." There were many findings, etc. about its physiological theories. "When I said they were there, no one believed it," he added. "They thought we were mad," said Warren. "It was against all the medical teaching, but we had the evidence." Nobody was ready to examine it (this unconcern is the biggest problem). </p><p>Source: <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051003/01/" target="_blank">http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051003/01/</a> <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/</a> </p><p></p><p>Physiological theories are only assumptions. You should prove it or disapprove it through observations/experiments. The observation is a risk-free and costless method.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Domjan, post: 375463, member: 6102"] Observation or physiological theories? (6th part) An interesting and well known story: If you were a physiologist/medical expert then what would you choose? The long-standard teaching in medicine is that “the stomach is sterile and nothing grows there because of corrosive gastric juices”, but you do not know adequate examine about this widely believed theory. A pathologist says “there are bacteria in the stomach, I have found it, I have the evidence and it causes the ulcers that could be cured by treatment with cheap antibiotic medicine instead of expensive operations”. A, I will disapprove the explanation of the pathologist and I’ll follow the accepted theory and I suggest the operations. B, I will examine the stomach, it is easy, cheap. Every student is able to do a bacteriological test, too. Mr. Warren (Nobel Prize winner, 2005): “So everybody believed there were no bacteria in the stomach.” There were many findings, etc. about its physiological theories. “When I said they were there, no one believed it,” he added. "They thought we were mad," said Warren. "It was against all the medical teaching, but we had the evidence.” Nobody was ready to examine it (this unconcern is the biggest problem). Source: [url=http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051003/01/]http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051003/01/[/url] [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/[/url] Physiological theories are only assumptions. You should prove it or disapprove it through observations/experiments. The observation is a risk-free and costless method. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Tips 'n Tricks
New Milking System (15% more milk, fat)
Top