霍奇金和赫胥黎对他们对神经膜电流的“定量描述”的评价。

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-06-16 DOI:10.1007/s40656-023-00582-7
John Bickle
{"title":"霍奇金和赫胥黎对他们对神经膜电流的“定量描述”的评价。","authors":"John Bickle","doi":"10.1007/s40656-023-00582-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alan Hodgkin's and Andrew Huxley's mid-20th century work on the ionic currents generating neuron action potentials stands among that century's great scientific achievements. Unsurprisingly, that case has attracted widespread attention from neuroscientists, historians and philosophers of science. In this paper, I do not propose to add any new insights into the vast historical treatment of Hodgkin's and Huxley's scientific discoveries in that much- discussed episode. Instead, I focus on an aspect of it that hasn't received much attention: Hodgkin's and Huxley's own assessments about what their famous \"quantitative description\" accomplished. The \"Hodgkin-Huxley model\" is now widely recognized as a foundation of contemporary computational neuroscience. Yet Hodgkin and Huxley expressed serious caveats about their model and what it added to their scientific discoveries, as far back as their (1952d), in which they first presented their model. They were even more critical of its accomplishments in their Nobel Prize addresses a decade later. Most notably, as I argue here, some worries they raised about their quantitative description seem still to be relevant to current work in ongoing computational neuroscience.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hodgkin's and Huxley's own assessments of their \\\"quantitative description\\\" of nerve membrane current.\",\"authors\":\"John Bickle\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40656-023-00582-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Alan Hodgkin's and Andrew Huxley's mid-20th century work on the ionic currents generating neuron action potentials stands among that century's great scientific achievements. Unsurprisingly, that case has attracted widespread attention from neuroscientists, historians and philosophers of science. In this paper, I do not propose to add any new insights into the vast historical treatment of Hodgkin's and Huxley's scientific discoveries in that much- discussed episode. Instead, I focus on an aspect of it that hasn't received much attention: Hodgkin's and Huxley's own assessments about what their famous \\\"quantitative description\\\" accomplished. The \\\"Hodgkin-Huxley model\\\" is now widely recognized as a foundation of contemporary computational neuroscience. Yet Hodgkin and Huxley expressed serious caveats about their model and what it added to their scientific discoveries, as far back as their (1952d), in which they first presented their model. They were even more critical of its accomplishments in their Nobel Prize addresses a decade later. Most notably, as I argue here, some worries they raised about their quantitative description seem still to be relevant to current work in ongoing computational neuroscience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00582-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-023-00582-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

艾伦·霍奇金(Alan Hodgkin)和安德鲁·赫胥黎(Andrew Huxley)在20世纪中期对产生神经元动作电位的离子电流的研究,是那个世纪最伟大的科学成就之一。不出所料,这个案例引起了神经科学家、历史学家和科学哲学家的广泛关注。在这篇文章中,我不打算对霍奇金和赫胥黎的科学发现在这个被广泛讨论的情节中所做的大量历史处理增加任何新的见解。相反,我关注的是没有受到太多关注的一个方面:霍奇金和赫胥黎自己对他们著名的“定量描述”所取得成就的评估。“霍奇金-赫胥黎模型”现在被广泛认为是当代计算神经科学的基础。然而,早在1952年,霍奇金和赫胥黎就对他们的模型及其对他们科学发现的补充提出了严肃的警告,在1952年,他们首次提出了他们的模型。十年后,他们在诺贝尔奖致辞中对其成就提出了更严厉的批评。最值得注意的是,正如我在这里所说的,他们对定量描述提出的一些担忧似乎仍然与正在进行的计算神经科学的当前工作有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Hodgkin's and Huxley's own assessments of their "quantitative description" of nerve membrane current.

Alan Hodgkin's and Andrew Huxley's mid-20th century work on the ionic currents generating neuron action potentials stands among that century's great scientific achievements. Unsurprisingly, that case has attracted widespread attention from neuroscientists, historians and philosophers of science. In this paper, I do not propose to add any new insights into the vast historical treatment of Hodgkin's and Huxley's scientific discoveries in that much- discussed episode. Instead, I focus on an aspect of it that hasn't received much attention: Hodgkin's and Huxley's own assessments about what their famous "quantitative description" accomplished. The "Hodgkin-Huxley model" is now widely recognized as a foundation of contemporary computational neuroscience. Yet Hodgkin and Huxley expressed serious caveats about their model and what it added to their scientific discoveries, as far back as their (1952d), in which they first presented their model. They were even more critical of its accomplishments in their Nobel Prize addresses a decade later. Most notably, as I argue here, some worries they raised about their quantitative description seem still to be relevant to current work in ongoing computational neuroscience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
期刊最新文献
Snait B. Gissis, Lamarckism and the emergence of 'scientific' social sciences in nineteenth-century Britain and France, Springer, 2024. The historical transformation of individual concepts into populational ones: an explanatory shift in the gestation of the modern synthesis. Postgenomic understandings of fatness and metabolism. The evolution of ACEs: From coping behaviors to epigenetics as explanatory frameworks for the biology of adverse childhood experiences. Of rats and children: plague, malaria, and the early history of disease reservoirs (1898-1930).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1