Dispositive evidence

Dispositive evidence is evidence that directly contradicts an assertion. While an empirical assertion cannot be proved, it certainly can be disproved, given precise definitions of all terms.

Faced with dispositive evidence, a scientist has but two choices:
1. Abandon the model and create a new one that fits all of the old data and the dispositive data
2. Revise the model to explain the dispositive evidence.

What do doctors do as a rule when faced with dispositive evidence that they are wrong? Much to our detriment, doctors dig their heels in.

Example:

1. The absurd idea that nuclear mutations cause cancer.

The idea is absurd because there is neither immediacy, nor sufficiency, nor necessity – in short, a failed hypothesis by definition of the word “causation.” By definition, the cause immediately produces its effect. The cause necessarily produces its effect and the cause alone produces its effect. By definition, causes are the exceptions. Acausality is the rule.

But here is the dispositive evidence:

If nuclear mutations cause cancer, then the following cannot EVER be observed:

1. When nuclei from cancer cells that contain the so-called causative mutations are injected into enucleated cytoplasm from non-tumorigenic cells, creating a so-called cybrid (cellular hybrid), the result MUST be carcinogenic.

What has been observed:

1. Sometimes the cybrids are tumorigenic
2. Most often the cybrids are non-tumorigenic.

Result #1 is ambiguous -probably explained by some iffy cytoplasm, not strong enough to change the phenotype that is epigenetically and/or genetically programmed into the tumorous nuclei – Warburg cited an example where nearly two thirds of the respiratory capacity of the cytoplasm of a cell line was gone, by definition “iffy” cytoplasm, and yet the cells were only 1% tumorigenic, and another cell line, derived from the same clone, that had still less mitochondrial respiration, but possessed a whopping 97% tumorigenicity. Clearly there is a lot more to tumorigenicity than impaired mitochondrial respiration, and mitochondrial respiration may have to be seriously impaired when nuclear reprogramming is insufficient by itself to maintain the cancer phenotype, and mitochondrial respiration may need to be only partially impaired when nuclear reprogramming is seriously impaired, seriously supportive of the cancer phenotype.

However, result #2 is dispositive – Nuclear mutations do not cause cancer. Period, end of story. We need a new model.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s