The missing hydrogen ion, Part-3: Science and the human flaws that compromise it.

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to use a historical method and core principles from scientific philosophy to explain why mistakes were made in the development of the lactic acidosis construct. On a broader scope, this research explains what science is, why some scientists despite good intention, often get it wrong, and why it takes so long (decades) to correct these errors. Science is a human behaviour that consists of the identification of a problem based on the correct application of prior knowledge, the development of a method to best resolve or test the problem, completion of these methods to acquire results, and then a correct interpretation of the results. If these steps are done correctly there is an increased probability (no guarantee) that the outcome is likely to be correct. Thomas Kuhn proposed that you can understand what science is from how it has been performed, and from his essays he revealed a very dysfunctional form of science that he called ‘normal’ (due the preponderance of its presence) science. Conversely, Karl Popper was adamant that the practice of ‘normal’ science revealed numerous flaws that deviate from fundamental principles that makes science, science. Collectively, the evidence reveals that within the sports medicine and health sciences, as with all disciplines, errors in science are more frequent than you might expect. There is an urgent need to improve how we educate and train scientists to prevent the pursuit of ‘normal’ science and the harm it imparts on humanity.

Keywords

Science / Scientific philosophy / ‘Normal’ science; / Anomaly / Paradigm

References

1	R.A. Robergs, S. Torrens,B. O'Malley. The missing hydrogen ion, Part-1: historical precedents and fundamental concepts. Sports Med Health Sci, 5 (4)(2023), pp. 336-343, 10.1016/j.smhs.2023.10.008.
2	R.A. Robergs, S. Torrens,B. O'Malley. The missing hydrogen ion, Part-2: where the evidence leads to. Sports Med Health Sci, 6 (1)(2024), pp. 94-100, 10.1016/j.smhs.2024.01.001.
3	W. Gevers. Generation of protons by metabolic processes in heart cells. J Mol Cell Cardiol, 9 (1977), pp. 867-874, 10.1016/S0022-2828(77)80008-4.
4	4 W. Gevers. Generation of protons by metabolic processes other than glycolysis in muscle cells: a critical view [letter to the editor]. J Mol Cell Cardiol, 11 (1979), p. 328, 10.1016/0022-2828(79)90446-2.
5	P.W. Hochachka, T.P. Mommsen. Protons and anaerobiosis. Science., 219 (1933), pp. 1391-1397, 10.1126/science.6298937.
6	W.B. Busa, R. Nuccitelli. Metabolic regulation via intracellular pH. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol, 246 (1984), pp. R409-R438, 10.1152/ajpregu.1984.246.4.R409.
7.	S.C. Dennis, W. Gevers, L.H. Opie. Protons in ischemia: where do they come from; where do they go to?. J Mol Cell Cardiol, 23 (1991), pp. 1077-1086, 10.1016/0022-2828(91)91642-5.
8	R.A. Robergs. Exercise-induced metabolic acidosis: where do the protons come from?. Sport Sci, 5 (2) (2001). sportsci.org/jour/0102/rar.htm.
9	R.A. Robergs, F. Ghiasvand, D. Parker. Biochemistry of exercise-induced metabolic acidosis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol, 287 (2004), pp. R502-R516, 10.1152/ajpregu.00114.2004.
10	R.A. Robergs. Competitive cation binding computations of proton balance for reactions of the phosphagen and glycolytic energy systems within skeletal muscle. PLoS One, 12 (12) (2017), Article e0189822, 10.1371/journal.pone.0189822.
11	R.A. Robergs.Invited review: Quantifying proton exchange from chemical reactions - implications for the biochemistry of metabolic acidosis. Comp Biochem Physiol Mol Integr Physiol, 235 (2019), pp. 29-45, 10.1016/j.cbpa.2019.04.024.
12.	R.A. Robergs. Quantifying H+ exchange from muscle cytosolic energy catabolism using metabolite flux and H+ coefficients from multiple competitive cation binding: new evidence for consideration in established theories. Physiol Reports, 9 (2021), Article e14728, 10.14814/phy2.14728.
13	T. Lewens. The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Basic Books (2016).
14.	S. Okasha.Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York (2002).
15.	T.S. Kuhn.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (fourth ed.), The University of Chicago Press (2012).
16.	K.R. Popper.The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (third ed.), Martino Publishing (2014).
17.	R.A. Robergs.How to Be A better scientist: lessons from scientific philosophy, the historical development of science and Past errors within exercise physiology. Sports Med Health Sci, 4 (2)(2021), pp. 140-146, 10.1016/j.smhs.2022.04.001.
18.	S. Fuller.Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science. Columbia University Press (2006).
19.	V. Katch. Burden of disproof. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 18 (5) (1986), pp. 593-595.
20	Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review. Selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, Ill. JAMA (1990). 23(10):1317-1441.
21.	J.C. Burnham.The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263 (10)(1990), pp. 1323-1329, 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003.
22	D.W. Sharp.What can be done and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor. JAMA, 263 (10)(1990), pp. 1390-1391, 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100102015.
23	T.C. Chalmers, C.S. Frank, D. Reitman.Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA, 263 (10)(1990), pp. 1392-1395, 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100104016.
24	D.F. Horrobin.The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA, 263 (10)(1990), pp. 1438-1441. https://doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100162024.
25	R.A. Robergs. Editorial: a critical review of peer review: the need to scrutinize the "gatekeepers" of research in exercise physiology. J Exerc Physiol online, 6 (2) (2003), pp. i-xiii.
26	R.A. Robergs. Lessons from Popper for science, paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions, paradigm shifts and exercise physiology. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med, 3 (2017), Article e000226, 10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000226.
27	E. Kagereki, J. Gakonyo, H. Simila. Significance bias: an empirical evaluation of the oral health literature. BMC Oral Health, 16 (2016), p. 53, 10.1186/s12903-016-0208-x.
28	I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press (1970).
29.	K.R. Popper.Normal science and its dangers. I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press (1995), pp. 51-58.
30.	T.S. Kuhn.Reflections on my critics. I.Lakatos, A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge(1995), pp. 231-278.
31.	P. Atkins.Conjuring the Universe: The Origins of the Laws of Nature. Oxford University Press (2018).
32.	P.E.Di Prampero, C.T.M. Davies, P. Cerretelli, et al.. An analysis of O2 debt contracted in submaximal exercise. J Appl Physiol, 29(1970), pp. 547-551.
33	R. Margaria, P. Cerretelli, D.E. DiPrampero, et al.. Kinetics. Kinetics and mechanism of oxygen debt contraction in man. J Appl Physiol, 18 (2) (1963), pp. 371-377.
34	G.A. Gaesser, G.A. Brooks. Metabolic bases of post-exercise oxygen consumption: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 16 (1) (1984), pp. 29-43.
35	B.K. Forscher. Chaos in the brickyard. Science, 142 (3590) (1963), p. 339.
36	R.A. Robergs. Further chaos and dysfunction in the brickyard and the systems that support it. Qeios, 16 (2023), 10.32388/MM4NJV.
37.	P. Galison. Submission statement. Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps: Empires of Time, W.W. Norton & Company (2002)