(76) Why is Cunliffe and Morphostasis so eclipsed?

I have just asked Google's Ai search, "Why do so few people discuss Cunliffe's morphostasis hypothesis?" The followings was the answer.

Cunliffe's morphostasis hypothesis receives few discussions because it is viewed as highly speculative, lacks detailed methodological guidance, and challenges established immunological theories. The hypothesis is often dismissed as "naïve science," hindering its integration into the mainstream, though some believe its ideas are prescient and will become accepted "normal science" in the future. Its lack of empirical detail and focus on broad principles, rather than concrete mechanisms, also limits its acceptance.

Factors Contributing to Limited Discussion

• Speculative Nature: The hypothesis is considered too speculative by many in the scientific community, making it difficult to be accepted as "good science".
• Challenges to Established Theories: Morphostasis offers alternative interpretations of immune system function that contradict long-held theories like clonal deletion and pathogen elimination, which are deeply entrenched in immunology.
• Lack of Detailed Methodology: As a philosophy rather than a methodology, the hypothesis provides insufficient detail and guidance for designing and conducting empirical research, leading to critiques of its explanatory and predictive power.
• "Naïve" Style: The style in which the hypothesis is presented is sometimes seen as too simplistic or "naïve" for mainstream scientific discourse.
• Lack of Citation: Few authors and journals cite Cunliffe's work, further marginalizing it and requiring efforts to emphasize its importance and historical relevance.

Counterarguments for Future Acceptance

• Prescience: Proponents argue that the hypothesis was prescient, anticipating shifts in scientific perception, and that many of its ideas will eventually become widely accepted "normal science".
• Broader Scope: It provides a broader, more comprehensive view of the immune system that includes time, geography, and environmental contexts, which is a limitation of current immunology models.
• Correction to Conceptual Confusion: The hypothesis aims to correct conceptual confusion in immunology, particularly the distortion of the definition of "pathogen" and the focus on "materialistic" signals at the expense of "procedural" aspects of immune response.

My response to this commentry

It is clear that the language and themes in this commentry reflect my own words and thoughts in my Prescedence web page. I am inclined to take this as a positive response as it has projected this view beyond my own cocoon.