Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15687745

New methodology in biomedical science: methodological errors in classical science.

Albertas Skurvydas
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The following methodological errors are observed in biomedical sciences: paradigmatic ones; those of exaggerated search for certainty; science dehumanisation; deterministic and linearity; those of making conclusions; errors of reductionism or quality decomposition as well as exaggerated enlargement; errors connected with discarding odd; unexpected or awkward facts; those of exaggerated mathematization; isolation of science; the error of "common sense"; Ceteris Paribus law's ("other things being equal" laws) error; "youth" and common sense; inflexibility of criteria of the truth; errors of restricting the sources of truth and ways of searching for truth; the error connected with wisdom gained post factum; the errors of wrong interpretation of research mission; "laziness" to repeat the experiment as well as the errors of coordination of errors. One of the basic aims for the present-day scholars of biomedicine is, therefore, mastering the new non-linear, holistic, complex way of thinking that will, undoubtedly, enable one to make less errors doing research. The aim of "scientific travelling" will be achieved with greater probability if the "travelling" itself is performed with great probability.

Explore related subjects

Biological Science DisciplinesHolistic HealthHumansMedicineNonlinear DynamicsPhilosophy, MedicalScienceSystems BiologySystems TheoryComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Albertas Skurvydas. 2005. New methodology in biomedical science: methodological errors in classical science.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15687745/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Pithos - a scalable and secure data container for FAIR-compliant research data management in life sciences.

Modern research techniques have led to exponential growth in the volume and complexity of scientific data. Consequently, managing these volumes securely and efficiently has become a major challenge. While all research domains face these challenges, life science research is particularly affected because current approaches often rely on a large set of different file formats, with metadata stored in separated databases or spreadsheets. This leads to fragmented datasets, orphaned data, and compromised research reproducibility. Traditional solutions also force researchers to choose between security and accessibility, with encrypted files preventing selective access and indexed formats lacking adequate security for sensitive data. These limitations are particularly problematic in large-scale genomic studies where researchers must decompress multi-gigabyte files to access specific regions, creating computational bottlenecks and inefficient network usage when working with cloud-stored datasets. We introduce Pithos, a next-generation file format specifically designed for scientific data management in distributed cloud environments. The format uses content-defined chunking to enable efficient deduplication across distributed storage systems, thereby reducing storage costs and bandwidth requirements. The append-only structure ensures data immutability and allows for incremental updates without compromising content. Benchmark results show that Pithos outperforms existing solutions in read and write performance, with comparable or improved storage efficiency.

Biological Science Disciplines↗
PubMed2007

NASA--has its biological groundwork for a trip to Mars improved?

In a 1991 editorial in The FASEB Journal, Robert W. Krauss commented on a recent report of the Presidential Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program (Augustine report). He concluded that, although a manned mission to Mars with life sciences as the priority was endorsed by the Committee, it failed to deal realistically with one huge gap; biological sciences have never been given high priority. According to Krauss, this left a void that will cripple, perhaps fatally, any early effort to ensure long-term survival on any mission of extended duration. The gap included insufficient flight time for fundamental biological space research and insufficient funds. Krauss expressed his opinions 15 years ago. Have we better knowledge of space biology now? This question becomes more acute now that President George W. Bush recently proposed a manned return to the moon by 2015 or 2020, with the moon to become our staging post for manned missions to Mars. Will we be ready so soon? A review of the progress in the last 15 years suggests that we will not. Because of the Columbia disaster, flight opportunities for biological sciences in shuttle spacelabs and in Space Station laboratories compete with time for engineering problems and construction. Thus, research on gravity, radiation, and isolation loses out to problems deemed to be of higher priority. Radiation in deep space and graded gravity in space with on board centrifuges are areas that must be studied before we undertake prolonged space voyages. Very recent budgetary changes within National Aeronautics and Space Administration threaten to greatly reduce the fundamental space biology funds. Are we ready for a trip to Mars? Like Krauss 15 years ago, I think not for some time.

Biological Science Disciplines↗