The dual standard in science

[pioneer]

This dual standard in science is connected to the different perfection constraints placed on different types of science. Let me explain this with an example. If one was to propose a theory for a phenomena in nature, which can explain the obervational data and be supported with the math it will last until data appears that creates contradictions. The theory either has to be able to evolve and accommodate the new data or it becomes obsolete. Theory is subject to a very high standard, which is good.

 

If we look at empirical correlations, which are a different breed of theory, the standards are much more lax. For example, the empirical data equates cigarette smoking with lung cancer, etc.. I am not condoning smoking only using this as an example. If I went into the population, I could find dozens, if not thousands of exceptions to this rule. If this was a theory it would be forced to accommodate this conflicting data or be given the boot to the obsolete pile. But the standards for empirical theory or correlation is very slack. Inspite of thousands of conflicting data points this particular correlation doesn't have to evolve nor is it told to go to the obsolete pile. Empiricism is held to a much lower standard than math or theoretical science yet it is still considered first string science. How did empiricism get grandfathered in to such a lax standard?

 

Let me reverse the situation. For now on say when making new natural theory one only needs to be 75% perfect to be acceptable. So there are flaws and acceptions, others areas of sceicne are getting away with it, so whats the big deal? So what if there are dozens of exceptions, the new lax standard only requires the theory just has to sort of fit and is allowed to stay without forced progression by a higher standard.

 

Let us reverse this again. So cigarette smoking creates cancer. That may be true in many cases, but I just found 100 exceptions to this correlation. For the good of science, I am going to hold your feet to the fire of the higher standard, which is placed on many other areas of science. If you don't want the boot you need to evolve the correlation. We would need to skinny down the correlation/theory to inlcude only data covered under the scope of the correlation, while data that does not apply has to be put into another correlation/theory pile. The higher standard wants perfection and not a bunch of included errors that don't have to be addressed due to some type of grandfather clause of lax standards.

 

If we don't get perfection we will call it minor league science or pseudo-science. If one wishes to make the big leagues one needs to play at that level. One group should not have it so lax, while another group is forced to hard labor by a much higher standard of perfection. In the defense of empiricsm maybe the lax standards are indicative of the state of the art in some areas of science needing to evolve to the next next. They may just need a good theoretical push.

[Paralith]

I'm not so sure I agree. A correlation is - well, a correlation. It's not a theory, it's not an explanation, it's a correlation. It says, these two (or more) things generally change at the same time. That's all a correlation says. Now if the popular media decides to take that correlation and say it means something more than that, they're wrong. A correlation is more of an avenue towards more in depth research, something from which you create a hypothesis, which you then test more thoroughly to see if there is actually a causal relationship between the two things. That's why correlations aren't held to high standards, because a correlation is only an observation, and by itself without further research can mean nothing.

[SkepticLance]

It strikes me that Pioneer's comments were actually about the quality of data in science.

 

Studies result in data that can be excellent, or very poor. Good science requires that we identify how good or how bad that data is. A major problem comes from the fact that the media often takes study results that are, in fact, very poor data, and splashes the possibly erroneous conclusions across headlines.

 

This is a big problem in epidemiology, which is the science that Pioneer's tobacco example comes from. It is quite common for studies in epidemiology to result in data that can be challenged. It is also very common for the results to be reported in magazines/TV etc in ways that are ridiculous.

[Reaper]

It strikes me that Pioneer's comments were actually about the quality of data in science.

 

Studies result in data that can be excellent, or very poor. Good science requires that we identify how good or how bad that data is. A major problem comes from the fact that the media often takes study results that are, in fact, very poor data, and splashes the possibly erroneous conclusions across headlines.

 

This is a big problem in epidemiology, which is the science that Pioneer's tobacco example comes from. It is quite common for studies in epidemiology to result in data that can be challenged. It is also very common for the results to be reported in magazines/TV etc in ways that are ridiculous.

 

 

 

Remember the S.A.R.S panic..... a good example of what was described above....

[BhavinB]

mmmm, I don't know about this. The quality of acceptable data should be determined by the field being studied and not by science as a whole. Subsequently, knowing the limitations of your data should also be known.

[Paralith]

It strikes me that Pioneer's comments were actually about the quality of data in science.

 

Studies result in data that can be excellent, or very poor. Good science requires that we identify how good or how bad that data is. A major problem comes from the fact that the media often takes study results that are, in fact, very poor data, and splashes the possibly erroneous conclusions across headlines.

 

This is a big problem in epidemiology, which is the science that Pioneer's tobacco example comes from. It is quite common for studies in epidemiology to result in data that can be challenged. It is also very common for the results to be reported in magazines/TV etc in ways that are ridiculous.

 

You're definitely right about the quality of data. It's an issue whose existence the popular media seems blind to. But the OP referred to the incorporation of conflicting data into "empirical correlations" - and if we're simply talking about data itself, then it seems rather obvious to me that yes, some data points will appear to conflict with the trend that the other data points follow. This will depend largely on the nature of your object of study, and not necessarily on the quality of the science involved - though obviously, better methods of measurement/observation/etc can at least make the gathering of data more accurate. Not all smokers develop lung cancer due to the complexities of cancer - the very nature of the subject leads to the existence of conflicting data points. To say that this conflict is a fault of science is not something I would agree with. Am I misunderstanding the OP?

[geoguy]

I'm not so sure I agree. A correlation is - well, a correlation. It's not a theory, it's not an explanation, it's a correlation. It says, these two (or more) things generally change at the same time. That's all a correlation says. Now if the popular media decides to take that correlation and say it means something more than that, they're wrong.

 

True.

 

Discusion of the 'state of science' outside of a particular discipline is a nebulous undertaking. ''Science' is not about media reports, essays in Scientifc America, popular books by Dawkins, etc. It's nitty-gritt published papers is accepted journals for a particular discipline. It's not that 'smoking leads to 'a' more often than 'b'. Read the actual paper and it will give specific raw data, the validity of the data, the regimen, percents, etc. It would not have a claim that 'smoking leads to heart disease' but a much more refined conclusions with parameters determined within very specific variables. The 'quality of the data' needs specific knocks aginst it and not an asumption that it's not valid. The paper itself should present how the data is collected and the conclusions based on that and thus open for further research if someone has reasons to question the data.

 

Science is not about finding 'the truth'. Science is a method of adding to knowledge. It's the quality of the science that matters. The conclusions of quality science do not need to be correct. Quality science means that the next researcher can come along and replicate the variables and discern whether or not those were measured correctly, the best variables to use, etc.

[swansont]

Let us reverse this again. So cigarette smoking creates cancer. That may be true in many cases, but I just found 100 exceptions to this correlation. For the good of science, I am going to hold your feet to the fire of the higher standard, which is placed on many other areas of science.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges, arguments about quality of data aside. Just as there is not one "scientific method," there cannot be one standard of evidence. You have to use the tools and methods that work for the type of science you are doing.

 

Quantum/wave mechanics is very successful, and with it I can predict the pattern of photons, electrons or atoms fired through a double-slit. But if I look at any individual particle, my prediction is reduced to a probability. All of the sudden I only have correlations that work part of the time. Is this a good theory or bad theory? The problem is asking for specific, individual results when a statistical result of an ensemble is what is being described.

 

Your example of smoking causing cancer is similar. It is causal, and it is also statistical. Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. Similar to predicting the interference pattern without being able to predict the actions of an individual particle. There is absolutely nothing here — no specific study is cited — that calls into question the quality of data or methodology. Only that the standard being applied is inappropriate. It does not make one standard greater or lesser, but you do have to understand what the standard is.

[lucaspa]

This dual standard in science is connected to the different perfection constraints placed on different types of science. Let me explain this with an example. If one was to propose a theory for a phenomena in nature, which can explain the obervational data and be supported with the math it will last until data appears that creates contradictions. The theory either has to be able to evolve and accommodate the new data or it becomes obsolete. Theory is subject to a very high standard, which is good.

 

If we look at empirical correlations, which are a different breed of theory, the standards are much more lax. For example, the empirical data equates cigarette smoking with lung cancer, etc.. If I went into the population, I could find dozens, if not thousands of exceptions to this rule. If this was a theory it would be forced to accommodate this conflicting data or be given the boot to the obsolete pile.

 

Pioneer, that smoking causes lung cancer is a theory. It's just that you are stating it wrong. The theory does NOT state that smoking causes lung cancer in every person who has ever smoked a cigarette. Instead, cancer is known to be a complex etiology and that individuals vary. Also, cancer itself is a stochastic process. Not all cells, exposed to the same chemicals, react the same.

 

Stochastic processes are accomodated in science. For instance, all of quantum mechanics involves stochastic processes. If you have 1,000 C14 molecules and wait for a half-life, you will not ALWAYS see 500 of them decay. Sometimes it will be 499 and sometimes 501. Does that invalidate radioactive decay? No. So, given a population of 1,000 people with a 20 pack year history of smoking, the theory says that X% will develop lung cancer.

 

This is backed not only by what you mistakenly call "empiricism" -- which in this case is retroactive epidemiological studies -- but also by studies on cells in culture where the effect of cigarette smoke as a whole and specific chemicals within that smoke are tested for their effects. It is observed that the effects are "harmful" to the cells in that they disrupt several cell processes.

 

Let us reverse this again. So cigarette smoking creates cancer. That may be true in many cases, but I just found 100 exceptions to this correlation.

 

See? this is where you mistate the theory. You made a strawman and now you are knocking it down. Have fun, but you aren't touching real science or the real theory.

 

If we don't get perfection we will call it minor league science or pseudo-science.

 

Nonsense. In dealing with biology, one of the very well know facts is individuals vary. No group of individuals is going to react identically to ANY compound or stimulus. So biology always accomodates this by including the error bars.

 

However, by the time the studies get to the media and policy is made from them, the theory gets simplified. You are arguing against the simplified situation, not reality.

 

Of course, I don't have much hope you will actually listen to this. I explained this in another thread of yours and you posted this one as tho that one did not exist.

 

Science is not about finding 'the truth'. Science is a method of adding to knowledge.

 

sigh. We've been over this. Yes, science is the study of the physical universe and, as such, it is about finding out how the universe actually works. In that sense, science is about "the truth". And science is NOT "a method". Science uses many methods. The most common one is the hypothetico-deductive method.

 

The conclusions of quality science do not need to be correct.

 

Uh, yes, they do. The conclusions have to be consistent with the data. Now, new data can come along that causes you to change the conclusions.

 

Quality science means that the next researcher can come along and replicate the variables and discern whether or not those were measured correctly, the best variables to use, etc.

 

This is "intersubjectivity". It is necessary, but I would not equate it to "quality science". Quality in science involves a lot more than that.

 

If I might hypothesize, I think Pioneer's problem is that public policy that affects his behavior is made from what he calls "empiricism". Altho Pioneer states "I don't condone smoking", let's face it: it is the scientific data that leads to the ethical decision not to "condone" smoking. For instance, he is told not to smoke. That may be OK, because he can ignore it. But then because of those studies on smoking policy is made that affects whether he can smoke or where he can. For instance, cigarette taxes are increased dramatically and this affects his ability to buy cigarettes. And laws are passed saying he cannot smoke in enclosed public spaces. Also, social pressures change and some people -- citing that cigarette smoke is unhealthy -- will not allow him to smoke in their presence or their homes.

[YT2095]

wouldn`t it Much more accurate to say that "Smoking CAN cause cancer" rather than state it as an absolute fact?

 

there needs to be a caveat added IMO, even "Smoking causes cancer (in Some people)".

[geoguy]

sigh. We've been over this. Yes, science is the study of the physical universe and, as such, it is about finding out how the universe actually works. In that sense, science is about "the truth". And science is NOT "a method". Science uses many methods. The most common one is the hypothetico-deductive method.

 

.

 

Not at all. You still haven't grasped the essence of science.Science is not about 'truth'. It is about building on knowledge. There is no end game. You mistake religion for science. Religion is about discovering 'truth'.

 

I realize that science is not your strong point but a basic review of science 101 might point you in the right direction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And are we assuming that "knowledge" is generally true?

[Paralith]

Science is not about 'truth'. It is about building on knowledge. There is no end game. You mistake religion for science. Religion is about discovering 'truth'.

 

But knowledge of what? Isn't science about building our knowledge of the nature of our world, of the true nature of our world? If you don't like the word "truth," how about the "reality" instead - knowledge of the reality of our world. What other kind of knowledge would we be pursuing? I don't understand the distinction you're making.

[Reaper]

Not at all. You still haven't grasped the essence of science.Science is not about 'truth'. It is about building on knowledge. There is no end game. You mistake religion for science. Religion is about discovering 'truth'.

 

I realize that science is not your strong point but a basic review of science 101 might point you in the right direction.

 

 

Sorry but I'm going to have to agree with lucespa here. We study the physical universe so that we can find out what is the case, as opposed to what appears to be the case or what might be the case.

 

Building off of knowledge comes as a consequence from our search for truth.

 

 

And, science is about physical truth, religion is about spiritual truth.

[swansont]

Not at all. You still haven't grasped the essence of science.Science is not about 'truth'. It is about building on knowledge. There is no end game. You mistake religion for science. Religion is about discovering 'truth'.

 

I realize that science is not your strong point but a basic review of science 101 might point you in the right direction.

 

You might want to check out a wider spectrum of lucaspa's posts before jumping to your conclusion about remedial courses.

 

And I think that religion has very little to do with discovering truth, but that's off topic for here.

[SkepticLance]

What is science? Science is a process.

 

By analogy : Compare science to building.

 

Joe is a builder. A builder is a person who builds. Building is a process. The result of the building process is houses.

 

Jack is a scientist. A scientist is a person who practices science. Science is a process. The result of this process is theories, models and what some people call scientific 'facts'.

[CDarwin]

This [...] push.

 

But no scientist says "smoking causes cancer." The correlation that many people who smoke get lung cancer is combined with data on the physiological affects of smoke to create the theoretical statement "smoking contributes to kinds of cancer." Exceptions to that theory wouldn't be people not getting cancer when they smoke, no one said it was universal, they would be smoking not having any effect on the body that could contribute to cancer. That translates into the practical statement "don't smoke because unless you're lucky you'll get cancer." Now of course the language I used was extremely crude, but you get my point. There's no double standard. Statistical correlation is just another bit of data that goes into to theory.

 

EDIT: I suppose in summary I can say "What Lucaspa said", since he seemed to have expressed what I was trying to say better already.

 

As for the little philosophy of science debate that has erupted: I would have to agree that science is a process. It's not necessarily any single method, but it's the process of seeking and using the best methods for understanding the natural world. Facts are the input, what is being sought, and theories and models are the output. That's my take.

 

I would also have to agree that "good science" isn't necessarily "correct science" in the ultimate sense. Due to our woefully incomplete understanding of the nature of the universe at any one point in time, I think you have to expect most of our own day's perfectly "good science" to end up being seen as at best incompletely correct in the future. This goes especially for reconstructions about the past in paleontology and arcaeology. Most of our "best guesses" about past cultures for example are probably completely inaccurate; that doesn't necessarily make them "bad science."

[geoguy]

And are we assuming that "knowledge" is generally true?

 

Assumption doesn't have a role. What is important is that the actual methodology is correct and that the results of that methodology is a rational conclusion. Newton was a scientist and no less of a scientist because many of his conclusions have been eclipsed (excuse the pun). His conclusions were rational results of the limited variables he introduced into his equations.He did not know of Relativity, Weak and Strong forces, the Quantum, etc.. He did not introduce these variables. We don't 'assume' Relativity is a productive way to proceed with other issues in physics. Relativity is accepted because it is a model that best fits the current evidence to date.

 

In the 33 years I've done research I've never read 'this is true' in a paper rather than 'this is the conclusion reached'. Conclusions may one day be negated by further research but this doesn't negate 'the science' that came before.

[pioneer]

Some areas of science are restricted to empiricism because the theory is not good enough to bump these areas into the next level. I have no problem with the methods and the data only that empirical correlations are vulnerable to political spin and therefore have an irrational aspect to them, which makes them less than fully rational.

 

For example, hypothetically, if I was to suggest that aerobic exercise will lower the risk of cigarrette smoking one could run the tests, gather the data and find at least some examples that would fit the correlation. Under the current poltical climate this would be downplayed since the political spin wants to ban cigarettes and this would be counterproductive. In other words, empiricsm is vulnerable to subjectivity. While subjectivity defeats the purpose of the age of enlightment which was to use reason to help us avoid the subjective spin that kept society in the dark ages.

 

One can not subjectively spin the hard number for the speed of light. This scientific fact is insulated from the subjective spin arena. This is the highest standard in line with the age of reason and fact. Empiricsm is essentially a throwback to alchemy when data was collected using the best they could do and them massaged subjectively to form theories, which although could predict, were forver out of touch with reality. Spin was then used to give them an extra edge.

 

Einstein sort of warn us when he said, he does not believe God chose to play dice with the universe. Empircism is sort of like gambling. The good gambler doing his research to shift the odds in his favor. But no gambling system is 100% reliable. It is based partially on science and partially on luck and hunches. The best it can do is beat the house. Rational theory not only beats the house but can approach 100%. Rational theory is not gambling anymore, but a sure thing. It is not allowed to play in the casinos of subjective opinion because it wins all the time.

 

One advantage of empiricsm is that is labor intensive so it does create a lot of jobs. I have no problem with that. But rational science should take a stance, call it tough love, to encourgage a weaning away from science gambling and its black market connection to political spin.

 

The life sciences and things that branch off from there are almost always dependant on empiricsm. Physics and Chemistry were able to jump to the next level, although not 100%. Their influence is the primary rational parts of the life science. But beyond that, the life sciences are much closer to 0% than they are to 100% with respect to rational predcition. This make a big chuck on science vulnerable to the masters of image and spin. These people are not going to change their natures, so science needs to take away its vulnerability. Science is looking for truth in nature. If one accepts progress as the best one can achieve, with a bunch of bull along the way, then one is probably a scientific gambler who is happy enough to just beat the house. That is not acceptable to the age of reason.

 

Part of the problem the life sciences face are very complex systems. It was a little easier for chemistry and physics to isolate phenomena since few of these have the same level of integrated complexity. The theory in the life sciences is not advanced enough to deal with this complexity. Maybe by default they are doing the best they can do. There is a way to make this complexity much less complex but it is not gambling. The necessity of a higher standard is one way to create the necessity. There is no need for this advancement if gambling is allowed to be the standard. The machine is not broken until one notices oil leaking from the motor.

[SkepticLance]

To Pioneer

 

I am not quite sure what you mean by empiricism. The correct definition says something like : "The philosophy that the mind has no internal knowledge and all must be collected by experience, experiment and observation."

 

The word 'empirical' refers to data collected by experiment and observation, rather than that internally generated by the mind, or by an equivalent, such as a computer.

 

Empiricism, and the need for empirical as opposed to internally generated data, is utterly basic to science. Data collected by non empirical methods must be treated as highly suspect.

 

In fact, the establishment of modern science began with Francis Bacon, whose great contribution was to require that data be empirical. Before that time, the great hindrance to advancement of knowledge was the principle established by Aristotle 2000 years earlier that logic could be used to deduce all knowledge. Until this was overturned, and people totally focused on empirical data, science could not advance.

 

Of course, any knowledge can be abused by the political process. This is not a fault with science, but one coming from pure human weakness.

[Paralith]

I agree with SkepticLance that you need to define the way you are using the world empiricism - it does not seem to match the technical definition of the word.

 

Scientists are themselves only human, so there are of course some of us that will give in to using political/media-esque spin on our work. But science in general does not depend on this, and most certainly not the life sciences. Discoveries in this area may be more subject to media spin due to their complexity and the ease with which they can be misunderstood. But again, I do not think this is the fault of the science involved - that the theory is not advanced enough, as you put it, that it is like gambling. The theories in life science is no different from those in physics and chemistry in that they are built upon methodical testing and re-testing against gathered data. You call physics and chemistry the only rational influence on life sciences, but that is because they form the first and more basic levels of biology. Higher and higher levels involve increasingly complex phenomenon, as you yourself say, which in turn makes that much more difficult to reduce the phenomenon we see into simple and easy to understand "rules" such as the speed of light is 2.99 x 10^8 m/s. I feel I speak for most life scientists when I say we are doing the best we can with such a complex system, and that I challenge you to find a better way to do it.

[pioneer]

There is an easier, more rational way, to express the living state, which I have been working on for the past two decades. It is possible to express the complexity in the cell in terms of one variable, which is hydrogen bonding. Essentially, chemical complexity can be reduced to this one common variable. This one variable is in all proteins, RNA, DNA and water. Bulk structure defines the hydrogen bonding states. Pertubating these hydrogen bonding states in simulation allow us to predict the type of structure needed to achieve a particular hydrogen affect.

 

The current theory places the DNA at the top of the pile. But in reality the DNA is the harddrive that stores memory, while the H is the CPU that allows the harddrive to coordinate with the rest of the cell. The DNA defines a dynamic H-bonding environment both within itself and within the water that surrounds it. If the aqueous H environment around the DNA changes, due to directed pertubations in the cytoplasm, the equilibrium H-bond nature of the DNA will cause it to assume this new induced dynamic state.

 

One may ask how is it possible for hydrogen to interact throughout the cell in a coordinated way? The easiest way to explain this is NMR. With NMR we use radio waves to vibrate and idenitify H within the living state. What radio waves bring to the table is a certain degree of transparency. One possible explanation is that the hydrogen makes use of transparent radio energy so it can coordinate H inspite of all the big atoms.

 

The h-bond approach allows a way to address the affect of the brain and nervous system on cellular differentiation control in the human body. The nervous tissue near the cells in the body implies memory tissue near nearly all cells in the body. These cellular control memories are a new frontier that can be exploited, but require addressing them in terms of h-bonds. These nervous memories do not have enough chemical output to explain a control connection using existing theoy. But at the level of the hydrogen bonding potential these affects are much more rational.

 

If one wishes to address the brain, it is far easier using one variable. In my experience the hydrogen potential affect always occurs in gradients from the simple molecule, to organelles, to cells, to multicellular, to entire multicellular organisms. As such, modelling the brain simply amount to defining the potential gradient hierarchy, which can be logically inferred.

 

This model is highly scalable even beyond the range of genetic theory. For example, learning is only indirectly connected to genetics in that it defines the chemicals behind the mechasism of learning but genetics does not place any practical limits on the type of content one wishes to learn. But at the level of hydrogen bonding potentials different memories should have different potential signitures in the brain and can therefore impact the types of potential gradients for additional thought processing.

 

Where there is a will there is a way is connected to H potentials. I can think about food in my imagination and make myself hungry. I essentially use H-potential to tweak the DNA in cells so they output hunger chems. Humans are not limited to genetic hunger cycles but can tweak the DNA at will using neural transmissions. The top of the H-bond CPU in the human body lies with the brain. The hierarchy from there works almost like a hologram with lower and lower levels using the same basic gradient potential schema. That is the simplicity of the model. It only uses one variable and one basic gradient potential schema at any level of life. This allows one to do much in their heads before needing to go to the lab.

[Paralith]

Wow, I'm glad to see that you weren't just shooting off your mouth and have actually thought about this. Though if you've been thinking about it for 20 years, I would think that you should have made this the real subject for your thread!

 

However, I do have to admit I'm a little confused.

 

One may ask how is it possible for hydrogen to interact throughout the cell in a coordinated way? ... One possible explanation is that the hydrogen makes use of transparent radio energy so it can coordinate H inspite of all the big atoms.

 

Are you saying that hydrogen atoms, of their own accord with no outside force, communicate with each other in order to coordinate their movements within a cell? You can't be suggesting that atoms are communicating with each other. They can most certainly interact with each other, but one atom sending a radio wave to another atom and giving it directions? If I misunderstand, please clarify what you mean.

[Genecks]

wouldn`t it Much more accurate to say that "Smoking CAN cause cancer" rather than state it as an absolute fact?

 

there needs to be a caveat added IMO, even "Smoking causes cancer (in Some people)".

 

Nope. There's a high correlation. This means that under certain documented scientific procedures, there has been a noticeable relationship between smoking and the later apperance of cancer.

[pioneer]

Nope. There's a high correlation. This means that under certain documented scientific procedures, there has been a noticeable relationship between smoking and the later apperance of cancer.

 

This is not true in every case although it is true in many cases. Since a correlation can't tell the difference between the two and because correlation is vulnervable to political spin, it is treated like one size fits all even though this is entirely irrational. Correlations are vulnerable to a cerrtain degree of irrational spin.

 

Even if one uses the documented cases how is the affect of air polutants taken into consideration, since many people, who do not smoke, will also develop cancer, including lung cancer. Is this lumped into the affect and spun to create the illusion that smoking is doing that too? Secondhand smoke may the spin correlation that was needed to account for some of the unexpected acceptions. How does one factor out the outgassing from carpeting, diesel fuel, interior auto vinyl from second hand smoke? One does not have to when it comes to correlation, spin will do just fine.

 

Are you saying that hydrogen atoms, of their own accord with no outside force, communicate with each other in order to coordinate their movements within a cell? You can't be suggesting that atoms are communicating with each other. They can most certainly interact with each other, but one atom sending a radio wave to another atom and giving it directions? If I misunderstand, please clarify what you mean.

 

I am not suggesting that hydrogen atoms have this internal something that allows them to communicate with other hydrogen atoms. It is done with electro-magnetic forces and subtle energy like radio-waves. If we have a gas in the atmosphere radio waves can cause simple changes. But the large biomaterials in the cell are too bulky to get much bulk affect. This weak enegy tends to have more of an impact at the weak level of the hydrogen atoms and on the hydrogen bonds. That is what NMR does.

 

I will continue this discussion of empirical correlation and political spin. But I am also going to begin a topic, in general chemisty ,that will deduce a new way to look at hydrogen bonding, which will make it possible to model the cell and multicellular organisms in terms of only one variable.