A critique on the theory of homeostasis

The objective of this critique is to demonstrate that the theory of internal environment (TIE) does not support the theory of homeostasis (TOH). We review and conclude that remains valid the concept of internal environment , which corresponds anatomically to the extracellular fluid (ECF) that bathes tissue cells. The Claude Bernard's classification of life , a corollary of the TIE under a strict reactive paradigm, we then interpret as a classification of how animals behave in response to environmental changes. According to such interpretation, the two theories agree that, when facing changes in the external environment, animals with free behavior regulate essential metabolism factors present in the ECF. These are internalized environmental factors or IEF (temperature, O-2, water, and basic organic and inorganic nutrients ), a marine legacy of the evolution of the body fluid compartments. However, we show that have empirical and logical shortcomings key inferences derived from the TIE. Such inferences representing traditional premises of TOH we summarize here in two axioms: if free behavior then regulated IEF and all behavioral mechanisms regulate the IEF . In addition, whereas stability means free behavior versus dormancy in TIE, it means tissue cells that resist destruction in TOH. This leads to inevitable contradictions, here discussed at length, that reduce the scope of TOH. We might be in need of a theory that considers not only where TIE and TOH are superficially valid, but also where they crucially diverge, in order to explain stability as applied to physiology and behavior.

Automated summary

The objective of this critique is to demonstrate that the theory of internal environment (TIE) does not support the theory of homeostasis (TOH). The authors review the concepts of both theories and conclude that there are logical and empirical shortcomings in the TIE, which reduce the scope of the TOH. They suggest the need for a theory that considers both the similarities and crucial divergences of the two theories in order to explain stability in physiology and behavior.