Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article
Dr Robergs suggested that the central governor model (CGM) is not a well-worded theory, as it deviated from the tenant of falsification criteria. According to his view of science, exercise researches with the intent to prove rather than disprove the theory contribute little to new knowledge and cond...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018-12-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000353.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850190621115940864 |
|---|---|
| author | Flavio Oliveira Pires |
| author_facet | Flavio Oliveira Pires |
| author_sort | Flavio Oliveira Pires |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Dr Robergs suggested that the central governor model (CGM) is not a well-worded theory, as it deviated from the tenant of falsification criteria. According to his view of science, exercise researches with the intent to prove rather than disprove the theory contribute little to new knowledge and condemn the theory to the label of pseudoscience. However, exercise scientists should be aware of limitations of the falsification criteria. First, the number of potential falsifiers for a given hypothesis is always infinite so that there is no mean to ensure asymmetric comparison between theories. Thus, assuming a competition between CGM and dichotomised central versus peripheral fatigue theories, scientists guided by the falsification principle should know, a priori, all possible falsifiers between these two theories in order to choose the finest one, thereby leading to an oversimplification of the theories. Second, the failure to formulate refutable hypothesis may be a simple consequence of the lack of instruments to make crucial measurements. The use of refutation principles to test the CGM theory requires capable technology for online feedback and feedforward measures integrated in the central nervous system, in a real-time exercise. Consequently, falsification principle is currently impracticable to test CGM theory. The falsification principle must be applied with equilibrium, as we should do with positive induction process, otherwise Popperian philosophy will be incompatible with the actual practice in science. Rather than driving the scientific debate on a biased single view of science, researchers in the field of exercise sciences may benefit more from different views of science. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e05bdba197804151a8b6a8b4831e41e0 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2055-7647 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-12-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine |
| spelling | doaj-art-e05bdba197804151a8b6a8b4831e41e02025-08-20T02:15:12ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine2055-76472018-12-014110.1136/bmjsem-2018-000353Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ articleFlavio Oliveira Pires0Exercise Psychophysiology Research Group, School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilDr Robergs suggested that the central governor model (CGM) is not a well-worded theory, as it deviated from the tenant of falsification criteria. According to his view of science, exercise researches with the intent to prove rather than disprove the theory contribute little to new knowledge and condemn the theory to the label of pseudoscience. However, exercise scientists should be aware of limitations of the falsification criteria. First, the number of potential falsifiers for a given hypothesis is always infinite so that there is no mean to ensure asymmetric comparison between theories. Thus, assuming a competition between CGM and dichotomised central versus peripheral fatigue theories, scientists guided by the falsification principle should know, a priori, all possible falsifiers between these two theories in order to choose the finest one, thereby leading to an oversimplification of the theories. Second, the failure to formulate refutable hypothesis may be a simple consequence of the lack of instruments to make crucial measurements. The use of refutation principles to test the CGM theory requires capable technology for online feedback and feedforward measures integrated in the central nervous system, in a real-time exercise. Consequently, falsification principle is currently impracticable to test CGM theory. The falsification principle must be applied with equilibrium, as we should do with positive induction process, otherwise Popperian philosophy will be incompatible with the actual practice in science. Rather than driving the scientific debate on a biased single view of science, researchers in the field of exercise sciences may benefit more from different views of science.https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000353.full |
| spellingShingle | Flavio Oliveira Pires Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine |
| title | Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article |
| title_full | Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article |
| title_fullStr | Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article |
| title_full_unstemmed | Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article |
| title_short | Lessons from a broad view of science: a response to Dr Robergs’ article |
| title_sort | lessons from a broad view of science a response to dr robergs article |
| url | https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000353.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT flaviooliveirapires lessonsfromabroadviewofsciencearesponsetodrrobergsarticle |