Argument: On Logic in Life Sciences
This is AKIRA.
Today's article is a follow-up discussion on the article below.
The importance of thinking based on mechanisms
Statistics is a logical system that demonstrates facts
I believe I have talked about statistics in my previous articles.
As I mentioned in those articles, statistics has limitations in how it can be used as a tool to guarantee scientific logic.
The essential reason for this lies in the fact that statistics is a form of academic study that treats 'facts as the main content'.
The question is whether to prioritize a proposal with few facts but well-secured logic, or a proposal with many facts but insufficient logic.
If it were me, I would prioritize using a proposal with few facts but well-secured logic in my response.
...(omitted)...
In conclusion, I emphasize building facts based on logic. In fields like life sciences that involve complex and ethical issues, I believe that logical thinking—how to interpret and position those facts—is more essential than the mere quantity of facts for producing highly reliable and responsible answers.
Why can facts themselves not serve as supporting evidence for established theories in life sciences?
It is a simple matter: 'facts themselves do not have the evidentiary capacity to prove any biological phenomenon'. Facts alone cannot explain biological phenomena; it is necessary for them to possess the logic that gives those facts biological meaning.
What is mechanism-based thinking, and what is it for?
1. 'Logic' as the foundation of reliability
Facts only have meaning when there is 'logic' to interpret how they are related and what they signify. Even if there are many facts, if they are disjointed and lack a consistent logical connection, the proposal lacks persuasiveness and carries the risk of leading to incorrect conclusions. If logic based on professional insight is secured, one can evaluate the direction and validity of a proposal even without individual facts.
2. The importance of ethical and social examination
When questioning the pros and cons of life science technology, a mere list of facts is insufficient. Examination from a broader perspective is necessary, such as how the technology affects society and what ethical issues it raises. Logical thinking is essential for analyzing problems from these multifaceted perspectives and forming a balanced view.
3. Responding to uncertainty
Life science is constantly evolving, and it is not rare for old facts to be overturned by new discoveries. Even in situations with few facts, if there is a solid logical framework, one can flexibly respond and update to better conclusions when new information is added. On the other hand, if there are only large amounts of facts without the logic to integrate them, it becomes difficult to respond to changing situations.
What Gemini calls "logic based on professional insight" refers to logic asserted with chemical mechanisms and guaranteed reproducibility. Although it says "even without individual facts," this expression can be rephrased as 'rather than vast amounts of facts not based on mechanisms'. Therefore, to be precise, while some observed chemical phenomena are facts in the general sense,
not all of them are necessarily events from which scientific meaning can be derived, so facts that do not fit existing mechanisms are left aside without their biological significance being discovered. In academic papers, these facts are often written as limitations of the research.
That is why a list of facts has no scientific meaning in life sciences. A list of facts unaccompanied by logical interpretation to explain 'why is this happening?' is, after all, just a collection of facts.
Gemini states that it is important to "analyze problems from multifaceted perspectives and form a balanced view," but when trying to apply advanced technologies like life sciences to the real world, it is not rare for the technology to be too ill-suited for society. Gemini likely expressed this situation as "balance," but for me, the expression "critical" feels more appropriate.
The reason why the pros and cons of these technologies are questioned is because there are elements that force the application of technology in situations different from the time of verification because biological conditions differ. In such cases, one must either downgrade those conditions from the technology or eliminate them altogether. In the worst case, if the significance of the technology is lost by eliminating them, it is inevitable that it becomes impractical.
A word that expresses these complex circumstances in one phrase.
That is 'uncertainty'. This is why science has falsifiability (the ability for a theory once considered correct to be overturned by new discoveries).
Just blindly accepting facts discovered each time makes it impossible to reconcile these new facts with facts discovered in the past. If that happens, what occurs is that it becomes a cause for suspicion that intentional lies are mixed into past discoveries.
However, if you think on a mechanism basis, it is possible to prepare in advance arguments that can explain the logical reasons for why that happens. By revising theories in this way, it becomes possible to capture biological phenomena with higher resolution.
It is not rare in the biological world for mechanisms to exist that have the properties of both, even for phenomena that seem to have opposite meanings at first glance. The reason such thinking does not become convenient thinking is that scholars who have raised questions and counter-evidence in the process have considered, "Isn't it like this?"
Crushing this and arguing only with visible physical data (facts) not only narrows one's perspective but can also cause delays in the development of technology.
That is precisely why mechanism-based thinking is necessary for life sciences.
What is visible is not the only essence
Because facts are phenomena that are very easy to understand in themselves, we tend to place our trust in them, but because they are easy to understand, we must doubt them.
What kind of life science significance does it have?
You won't know until you verify it under various conditions, and there are things you won't know even if you do.
They are not necessarily always visible.