{"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}
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.
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).