These days with novel facilities we have better understandings of sciences. There are many documented findings that might not be really correct. For example: origin of leukemic cells in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. It is known that the origin of these leukemic cells is B cells. But these cells express CD5, a marker of T cells. Maybe these cells are really T cells or none of them. What do you think if we try to reconsider the old documented results in science?
Actually, it is one of the main tasks of science: to reconsider the old documented results in science.
Dear vladimir. You are right, but mostly nothing has happened Do not you think that research gate ia a proper way to challenge and discuss some of them?
I think such scholarly debate is most useful in academic journals, where our new insights can be supplemented with empirical data. Its many flaws notwithstanding, one thing that the the current system of scholarly publication does *not* do is suppress important new insights that are grounded on sound research.
I am in no position to comment on the specific example you have cited, but I am puzzled by the assertion that "mostly nothing has happened". In my field, I can think of at least three radically different ways of conceptualising what we do, which were popular in different times in the past 50 years or so. Sometimes this is in response to "watershed publications": for instance, in linguistics Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behaviour demolished Structuralism in a metaphorical blink of an eye. More often, such change is gradual, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening. Could it be that you're frustrated just because you're focusing on a very limited time-scale?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing