ANOMALIES
“When persistent efforts by the best researchers fail to resolve the anomalies, the community begins to lose confidence in the paradigm and a crisis period ensues in which serious alternatives can now be entertained.”
–Thomas Nickles
The purpose of scientific theory is to create a conceptual framework that explains not just what happens, but why it happens. That framework can then be used to predict what will happen in the future. Take the apocryphal example of Newton developing the Theory of Gravitation based upon the observation that an apple falls from a tree. The Theory of Gravity explains why the apple falls rather than rises. Once we know why the apple falls, we can predict that all other apples will also fall. We’re not relying on the previous observations; we are relying on the Theory.
If the next apple rises rather than falls, we call it an anomaly. An anomaly is an empirical result that is different from what the theory predicts. If we can’t come up with an adequate explanation for why the anomaly occurred, it means that the underlying theory is flawed.
Although the terms “theory” and “paradigm” are frequently conflated, they do not have identical meanings.i However, for purposes of analyzing the significance of anomalies, the important conceptual point is the same. If one cannot explain why certain observed phenomena are wholly inconsistent with the current aging paradigm, then it means that the paradigm itself is flawed. Thus, according to Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm shift is mandated when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the current paradigm that can be better explained by a proposed new paradigm.ii Unexplainable anomalies constitute Kuhn’s second prerequisite for a paradigm shift.
This essay will briefly discuss a number of such anomalies.
The Current Paradigm is Inconsistent with Principles of Natural Selection
A fundamental preconception of the current aging paradigm is that progressive dysfunctionality caused by the accumulation of intrinsic damage (FDS) is an inherited trait common to all species. As has been discussed at some length in other essays on this website, this preconception is wholly inconsistent with the principles of natural selection. Natural selection works by selecting traits that enhance the probability of an organism surviving and reproducing. What trait could be more important for survival and reproduction than functionality? The progressive dysfunctionality that characterizes the infirmities of aging could not be a trait that would be favored by natural selection.
Darwin recognized that the inconsistency between the preconception and his proposed theory posed a dangerous anomaly for his theory. But he was not in a position to question the preconception, which was a foundational belief of a paradigm that had dominated for centuries. Thus he looked for rationales – ways to contort his theory so that it wouldn’t be inconsistent with the paradigm. But now that we know for certain that natural selection as an accurate representation of objective reality, it’s long past time to re-examine the inconsistency. Is it possible that the preconception is inaccurate rather than the Theory of Evolution being flawed? The Institute points to two significant factors of which Darwin was not, and could not, be aware. The first is that phenotype does not strictly match genotype. The second is that not all species suffer from FDS; in fact, as noted below, homo sapiens is the only species that suffers from FDS.
So the bottom line is that the “observed phenomena,” i.e., the preconception that FDS is a genetically inherited trait, is where the flaw exists, not the principles of natural selection.
Aging in Other Species
One of the core preconceptions of the current aging paradigm is that biological aging is a singular, genetically inherited trait shared by all complex organisms. The reality is that the only species that suffers from FDS is homo sapiens. Thus the preconception itself is inaccurate. The anomaly comes from the fact that only one species suffers from FDS. Since all mammalian species other than humans have maintenance systems that remain fully effective throughout their natural lifespans, it is anomalous that humans appear to have maintenance systems that typically are less than fully effective as early as the third decade of one’s life.
This anomaly is discussed more fully in the essay entitled “Aging in Other Species.”
Entropy Anomaly
The NPA paradigmi is based on the premise that biological aging is the result of ordinary wear and tear, or entropy, causing intrinsic damage, which accumulates because of the inherent inadequacies of maintenance processes.ii The NPA paradigm correctly assumes that lifestyle changes (avoiding damage accelerants such as obesity, tobacco products, pollution, stress, etc.) reduce the risk of degenerative disease by slowing the rate at which intrinsic damage is inflicted.
However, there are environmental factors that contradict this model. The most striking example is physical activity. Increased physical activity undoubtedly increases wear and tear, so one would expect an increase in physical activity to increase the rate at which intrinsic damage accumulates. A 2008 study on the presumed effects of physical activity on the accumulation of damage illustrates this proposition.i That study concluded that the lifespan to limit entropy (death as a result of the aging process) for a sedentary male would be 85.05 years, while the lifespan to limit entropy for a very active male would be 53.20 years. The numbers for women were 95.75 years and 57.68 years respectively. Those results, which are predicted by the NPA view of the current aging paradigm, cannot be reconciled with the fact that physical activity is universally acknowledged to lower the risk of all age-associated degenerative diseases.ii The fact that increased physical activity tends to decrease rather than increase the symptoms of FDS is an unexplainable anomaly for the current paradigm.
Similarly, gravity plays a significant role in entropy, so the NPA paradigm would predict that, like lack of physical activity, the absence of gravity would be expected to extend lifespan. In his fictional book Contact, Carl Sagan imagined a future in which extremely wealthy humans would live in luxury satellites circling the earth in the belief that the absence of gravity would prevent wear and tear, thus eliminating aging and making them immortal.
Consistent with Sagan’s fictional prediction, the 2008 study cited above also predicted changes to the expected lifespan of an astronaut based on the time the astronaut is exposed to the weightless condition. The study predicted that a male astronaut would extend his life span one year for every 9.5 years he spent in space. For a female astronaut, this time was estimated as 7.5 years. These predictions are also wildly inconsistent with reality. The initial astronauts who were housed aboard space stations suffered greatly accelerated FDS, characterized by significant bone loss, loss of muscle mass, etc. The symptoms have been described as an acceleration of the aging process.
Similar “aging” effects have been observed with respect to extended bed rest. All of these factors (lack of physical activity, absence of gravity, lack of movement) are factors that reduce wear and tear, and thus should decrease FDS, according to the NPA paradigm. Instead, these factors all tend to increase FDS. The fact that the absence of gravity and/or physical activity tends to increase rather than decrease the symptoms of FDS is an unexplainable anomaly for the current paradigm.
The Hypothesis provides a ready explanation. The way to reconcile these anomalies is by recognizing the role of maintenance processes. Physical activity increases the rate at which damage is inflicted, but because that activity enhances the performance of certain maintenance processes, the net result is a reduction in the accumulation of damage. The absence of gravity decreases the rate at which damage is inflicted, but because the absence of gravity disrupts certain maintenance processes, the net result is an increase in the accumulation of damage.
Flawed Empirical Model
Another preconception of the current aging paradigm is that the “biological aging” trait is an inexorable and inevitable trait. That preconception is based upon an empirical model that assumes that all young people are healthy and strong, and all older people are unhealthy and weak. The reality is that many younger humans suffer from age-associated diseases that are aspects of FDS. For example, Type 2 diabetes, which is conventionally considered to be an age-associated disease, used to be labeled “adult-onset diabetes.” But nowadays, it is not at all unusual for a teenager to be diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Each younger person who suffers from FDS is an unexplainable anomaly for the current paradigm
At the other end of the spectrum, there are a large and growing number of people in their fifth, sixth or even seventh decade of life that show almost no signs of being afflicted with FDS. If the current paradigm is correct that all older people are inevitably subject to the same aging process, then each older person who shows no apparent signs of being afflicted with FDS is an unexplainable anomaly for the current paradigm.
Unlike “Aging,” Certain Symptoms of FDS are Reversible
There are dozens of physiological changes that are associated with aging. Decreases in physical performance (strength, stamina, mobility, coordination, balance, etc.), bone mineral density, muscle mass and tone, cognitive function, homeostatic mechanisms, heart rate variability, and increased insulin resistance are just some of the recognized symptoms of aging. In the conventional model, all of these symptoms are inextricable components of the aging trait. Thus, under the current paradigm, each of these symptoms must be irreversible.
However, in some cases, lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, don’t just slow the rate at which FDS accumulates. Lifestyle changes can measurably improve the performance of the human skeletal muscle system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, etc. The fact that any of the symptoms (decreased functionality) of FDS can be reversed to any extent is an unexplainable anomaly for the current paradigm.
The conventional response to the point that lifestyle modifications constitute an unexplainable anomaly for the aging paradigm is that we already know that lifestyle changes are good for you, and doctors already recommend an improved diet and more physical activity. But the role of science is not simply to recommend solutions. Science is supposed to tell us how and why phenomena occur. If the observed phenomena (older persons able to improve functionality in multiple modalities) is inconsistent with the current paradigm, and that inconsistency cannot be explained, then the current paradigm is flawed and it is time for a shift.