Monday, December 18, 2017
New technology ----> new discoveries? No.
Not writing much here due to weather and work. Just one convective thought before it slips into senile smog....
In building courseware I'm constantly studying to understand what I'm animating. Studying is necessary in neurology because the known and OBSERVED facts are changing remarkably fast.
The facts didn't change much from 1890 to 1990. Now fresh and often astonishing discoveries are coming fast.
Does the new burst come from new technology? Gene splicing, MRI and similar scans?
NO.
Gene fiddling hasn't contributed to these facts. MRI can provide insights, but in fact MRI mostly verifies long-known connections between stimulus and response in a visual form that can be used in academic publications and lawsuits.
The new discoveries result from (1) careful observation through optical and electron microscopes, (2) painstaking experiments, and (3) electrochemistry. (eg what proteins do when ions move in and out.)
Of those technologies, only electron microscopes were unknown in 1890. They became common around 1960.
Electrochemistry was the core of neurology from 1840 to 1890, then went out of fashion.
These new facts are coming to light (literally) because neurologists lost their CONSENSUS and decided to resume LOOKING ABOUT THEM AND TAKING HOLD OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HERE. In other words, resumed science. Why did they lose CONSENSUS? I don't know, but it would be worth finding out.
Labels: Carver
¶ 11:52 PM
