1883 · Antoine Béchamp
Les microzymas
What this work is
Béchamp's summary of his doctrine. He holds that tiny granules he named microzymas, found in every animal and plant cell, are the basic living units: they carry out fermentation, can develop into bacteria when the surrounding medium changes, and outlast the organism they came from. The book draws on his sugar-solution experiments from the 1850s onward, in which mold growth and changes in the sugar were tracked in sealed and open flasks, and it disputes Pasteur's account that fermentation and disease come from germs arriving from the air.
Verdict
SCIENTIFIC
The work follows the scientific method, and the paradigm it assumes passes.
1·This work · inside the paradigm
SCIENTIFIC
Follows the scientific method within Terrain Theory.
2·Paradigm · Terrain Theory
SCIENTIFIC
Passes all three tests.
How the verdict is decided
The verdict grades the whole picture: the paradigm this work assumes, and how the work was carried out inside it. A work can follow the scientific method rigorously and still be unscientific, because rigor inside a paradigm only shows the conclusion was reached carefully. It cannot verify the premise the paradigm rests on. So the paradigm decides the verdict. The work’s own score is kept because it shows how the conclusion was built.
1·This work
Did this work test its claim with methods that are independent, falsifiable, and non-circular?
SCIENTIFIC
Béchamp claims that mold causes sugar inversion in solution, and that this observation led to his doctrine of microzymas as the fundamental living units present in all organic matter. All three tests pass.
Independently Verifiable
Pass
Béchamp saw mold grow in sugar solutions and measured whether the sugar's optical properties changed. A stranger who rejects the microzyma doctrine can still see mold in a jar and still measure whether sugar changed.
Falsifiable
Pass
If sugar had inverted in solutions where no mold grew, the claim would have been disproven. The zinc chloride and calcium chloride controls were built into the design and could have produced that result.
Non-Circular
Pass
The observation of mold and sugar inversion did not require the microzyma model to exist first. The instruments were eyes and a polarimeter, not probes built from a prior sequence.
Why
Béchamp dissolved cane sugar in distilled water and waited. In some solutions, mold grew and the sugar's optical properties changed. In solutions where he added zinc chloride or calcium chloride, no mold grew and the sugar stayed unchanged. He then tested creosote, which prevented mold from developing and prevented inversion, but did not stop mold that was already growing from continuing to act on the sugar. The observation was physical. You can see mold in a jar. You can measure whether sugar changed its light-rotating properties with a polarimeter, which is a physical instrument that does not presuppose any biological model. The control was genuine. Solutions without mold served as the negative case, and they produced the negative result. If sugar had inverted without mold, the claim would have been disproven on the spot. The conclusion that mold caused the inversion was built from observations that did not require the microzyma model to exist first.
2·Paradigm · Terrain Theory
Does the framework this work assumes pass the three tests?
SCIENTIFIC
Independently Verifiable
Pass
The condition of the solution, the presence or absence of mold, and the change in the sugar's properties are all visible without accepting the terrain model.
Falsifiable
Pass
If the sugar had changed without mold, or if mold had grown without changing the sugar, the terrain claim would have been disproven and Béchamp would have had to abandon it.
Non-Circular
Pass
The terrain was observed directly. The conclusion that the terrain determines the outcome was built from what was seen, not from a model that defined the observation before it was made.
Why
Terrain Theory holds that the condition of the host determines what happens in the organism. Béchamp's experiments demonstrate this directly. The sugar solution was the terrain. When the terrain allowed mold to develop, the sugar changed. When the terrain was altered with zinc chloride or calcium chloride, mold did not develop and nothing changed. When creosote was added, it changed the terrain so mold could not establish itself, but it did not destroy mold that was already there. The terrain determined the outcome. This is observable without accepting any germ model. A stranger can see mold growing in one jar and not in another. The framework does not protect itself from disproof. If the sugar had inverted without mold, the claim would have died. If mold had grown without changing the sugar, the claim would have died. The theory was built from what could be seen, not from an invisible entity that defined the observation in advance.
From the work
L'interversion eut lieu, mais je notais en même temps qu'il y avait une moisissure dans la solution
il n'y eut de moisissure ni dans l'une ni dans l'autre, et le sucre ne fut point interverti
l'eau froide n'opère aucune transformation du sucre de canne ; l'interversion n'a lieu que consécutivement au développement de la moisissure
Source
Les microzymas
Antoine Béchamp
1883 · Primary work
Scored from primary work · Rubric 1.0