'biological plausibility' and 'theoretical coherence'

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

so 'biological plausibility' is relevant when there is no evidence to support a hypothesis but the hypothesis is reasonable when current knowledge is considered, yes?
but 'theoretical coherence'?, would someone define same as i've been unable to successfully web search a meaning, thanks, mark

 

31 viewers and no idea?
i swear i'll go over to the dark side and post it on a chiropractic forum

 

Sorry, Mark, I have had the tab on the browser open to reply to this for a few days!

I use those terms a lot in the absence of evidence when considering a model/theory/intervention/etc

Biological plausibility is when there is a logical pathophysiological mechanism present that is supported by circumstantial rather than direct evidence.
Theoretical coherence is a bit harder to explain in a short time; it refers to the theoretical mechanism is coherent and makes sense. There may be bits of circumstantial evidence that support parts of the theory behind it but not all is supported by evidence (yet). There should be no evidence that contradicts part of the theory. I liken it to 'story telling' - building a case for the theory based on evidence that supports parts of the theory.

For eg, there is NO evidence the reflexology works; there is plenty of evidence that a damn good foot massage makes people feel better and has a physiological affect; but as for the different organ systems linked to the sole of the foot = no evidence.
So in the absence of that evidence is there any biological plausibility? Nope - there is not one anatomical or physiological mechanism linking different organ systems to the bottom of the foot.
What about theoretical coherence? There is none; the theory that different organ systems are linked to regions on the sole of the foot makes no sense. Its just and idea that someone pulled out of thin air and based it on no underlying theory. The theories that link organ systems to regions of the foot and why they might be there are not coherent and not one part of the theory is supported by any circumstantial evidence.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

Thanks Craig, very good of you and yes i do comprehend now, all the best, mark

 

Thanks too Craig, I have heard you use those terms before.