Why Don't Biologists Subscribe To The Association Induction Hypothesis ?

[Dante]

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-biologists-subscribe-to-the-association-induction-hypothesis
Quoting the second answer -
" It seems to rely upon the idea that the sodium-potassium pump doesn't exist. That's just not true. We know the gene responsible (ATP1A1 ) we have the protein sequence (sodium/potassium-transporting ATPase subunit alpha-1 isoform a), and we have the crystal structure (3WGU: Crystal structure of a Na+-bound Na+,K+-ATPase). I can even buy it as a purified protein if I so desire (atp1a1 recombinant protein). "

 

[Such_Saturation]

" It seems to rely upon the idea that the sodium-potassium pump doesn't exist. That's just not true. We know the gene responsible (ATP1A1 ) we have the protein sequence (sodium/potassium-transporting ATPase subunit alpha-1 isoform a), and we have the crystal structure (3WGU: Crystal structure of a Na+-bound Na+,K+-ATPase). I can even buy it as a purified protein if I so desire (atp1a1 recombinant protein). "

lol strawman

 

[Kyle M]

There is a disconnect, existing to varying degrees within individual scientists, between what this or that molecular assays actually measures, and what they think that means. It's very easy to take intellectual short cuts and say that what you are measuring is "inflammation" when what you're measuring is the relative light production of a petri-dish raised cell culture genetically engineered to connect a DNA promoter region that is suspected to be regulatory for producing inflammatory cytokines to a fluorescing protein. So when the scientist applies a treatment to these cells, and then puts the dishes under fluorescent imaging, they report a greater light production than non-treated cells as inflammation.

This isn't even the more egregious example of false equivocation, but something off the top of my head. The point is not that these assays are worthless, or don't provide evidence for what the researcher claims, but rather the biomedical field has subconsciously agreed to skip the part where they call something "evidence for" and call it "proof" or simply "showing" what they are looking for. Mix this with a generation or two of researchers who, on the average, don't understand how the assays work or the historical context of their invention and variations, and throw on top the huge incentive to 1) not step on any important toes and 2) have a consistent scientific story in your work where you never question or disavow previous findings or hypotheses and you have a recipe for a total breakdown in the scientific method and science culture.

As far as Na/K pump is concerned, what did they show, that they isolated a protein? Does that protein maintain a gradient as predicted, or does it, as Ling wrote, reverse the direction when inserted into synthetic membranes? Is that protein required to maintain a gradient, and if so how do red blood cells who lived for weeks without a nucleus to produce replacement proteins, or hair cells who have no functioning metabolism, produce Na/K gradients? A protein has been isolated and cloned for estrogen receptors alpha and beta too, does that mean that's the way estrogen affects cells? It's not even controversial, because of the triple negative breast cancer cell line, that estrogen receptors are not necessary for an effect of estrogen on cancer promotion.

 

[schultz]

I like the first guys argument. Basically the AIH is wrong because Gilbert can't get it published in journals. lol. Fantastic argument.......

Another argument is something along the lines of: The pump theory has to be right because so many scientists believe it. Just like: PUFA has to be healthy because the majority of scientists believe it.

I think the problem is a lot of academics focus too much on learning to memorize and don't necessarily learn how to theorize.

Is that protein required to maintain a gradient, and if so how do red blood cells who lived for weeks without a nucleus to produce replacement proteins, or hair cells who have no functioning metabolism, produce Na/K gradients?

Everybody knows hair has pumps in it.

 

[Dante]

There is a disconnect, existing to varying degrees within individual scientists, between what this or that molecular assays actually measures, and what they think that means. It's very easy to take intellectual short cuts and say that what you are measuring is "inflammation" when what you're measuring is the relative light production of a petri-dish raised cell culture genetically engineered to connect a DNA promoter region that is suspected to be regulatory for producing inflammatory cytokines to a fluorescing protein. So when the scientist applies a treatment to these cells, and then puts the dishes under fluorescent imaging, they report a greater light production than non-treated cells as inflammation.

This isn't even the more egregious example of false equivocation, but something off the top of my head. The point is not that these assays are worthless, or don't provide evidence for what the researcher claims, but rather the biomedical field has subconsciously agreed to skip the part where they call something "evidence for" and call it "proof" or simply "showing" what they are looking for. Mix this with a generation or two of researchers who, on the average, don't understand how the assays work or the historical context of their invention and variations, and throw on top the huge incentive to 1) not step on any important toes and 2) have a consistent scientific story in your work where you never question or disavow previous findings or hypotheses and you have a recipe for a total breakdown in the scientific method and science culture.

As far as Na/K pump is concerned, what did they show, that they isolated a protein? Does that protein maintain a gradient as predicted, or does it, as Ling wrote, reverse the direction when inserted into synthetic membranes? Is that protein required to maintain a gradient, and if so how do red blood cells who lived for weeks without a nucleus to produce replacement proteins, or hair cells who have no functioning metabolism, produce Na/K gradients? A protein has been isolated and cloned for estrogen receptors alpha and beta too, does that mean that's the way estrogen affects cells? It's not even controversial, because of the triple negative breast cancer cell line, that estrogen receptors are not necessary for an effect of estrogen on cancer promotion.

I think the links are there. A Curious person can follow the links and see what they actually measure. You mention an interesting point on molecular assays.

 

[Kyle M]

I think the links are there. A Curious person can follow the links and see what they actually measure. You mention an interesting point on molecular assays.

I'm aware of this very post and what the links show. The long and short of it is that Ling's comments and questions were never addressed, but other "proof" has been cobbled together throughout the years, to make it look like the pump is an open and shut case to those who haven't been exposed to Ling. Unsurprisingly, Ling's questions are never taught in a school of biology, biochemistry, molecular biology etc.

If the pump was so clearly a correct theory, why don't the books include the questioning of it (like they do for many other biological theories, like the fight between vitalism and mechanism) and then show how those questions were answered and/or refuted?

In other words, if you had a bunk theory and wanted to make it look like it was the only reasonable one and that there isn't even a question to it, and that you have copious evidence proving it, I assert you would conduct yourself as have the scientists supporting the pump. Just like a politician who doesn't want to address allegations that they lied or stole or whatever, the challenges have never been met but have been ignored and they pretend that they never existed. When a student who happens to come across Ling brings any of it up, the professor they talk to rolls their eyes and says we "just know" that is silliness. My BS meter rings off the charts vis a vis this topic. I'm waiting for them to start calling Ling a Russian agent trying to get Trump elected, that's about the level of seriousness these people are using in their arguments.

 

[Dante]

I'm aware of this very post and what the links show. The long and short of it is that Ling's comments and questions were never addressed, but other "proof" has been cobbled together throughout the years, to make it look like the pump is an open and shut case to those who haven't been exposed to Ling. Unsurprisingly, Ling's questions are never taught in a school of biology, biochemistry, molecular biology etc.

If the pump was so clearly a correct theory, why don't the books include the questioning of it (like they do for many other biological theories, like the fight between vitalism and mechanism) and then show how those questions were answered and/or refuted?

In other words, if you had a bunk theory and wanted to make it look like it was the only reasonable one and that there isn't even a question to it, and that you have copious evidence proving it, I assert you would conduct yourself as have the scientists supporting the pump. Just like a politician who doesn't want to address allegations that they lied or stole or whatever, the challenges have never been met but have been ignored and they pretend that they never existed. When a student who happens to come across Ling brings any of it up, the professor they talk to rolls their eyes and says we "just know" that is silliness. My BS meter rings off the charts vis a vis this topic. I'm waiting for them to start calling Ling a Russian agent trying to get Trump elected, that's about the level of seriousness these people are using in their arguments.

Just asking , did you have doubts on the Na/K pump theory before coming across peat/forum. Since you are relatively new by your joining date and you are doing a phd i suspect you might had some doubts earlier.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I'm waiting for them to start calling Ling a Russian agent trying to get Trump elected

LOL EXACTLY

 

[Kyle M]

Just asking , did you have doubts on the Na/K pump theory before coming across peat/forum. Since you are relatively new by your joining date and you are doing a phd i suspect you might had some doubts earlier.

No it was Ray Peat that got me into it, I just didn't join the forum until much later. I've was in the "Ray Peat Fans" Facebook group for at least a year before joining here. I transitioned between my 1st and 2nd year in grad school from buying the text book pump, channel, receptor mechanisms to being almost 100% skeptical and believing in Ling, Pollack, Becker kind of stuff.