Plausibility
Biorhythmics is an established interdisciplinary area of scientific endeavor, but is still speculative in many facets. Biorhythms are based upon the study of biological organisms (in particular, the study of human behavior and physiology). Biorhythmics' plausibility is contested (vehemently, sometimes).
Biorhythms have echoes of chronobiology, the study of circadian and other rhythms. Through medical research, doctors have found that there are periodicity and rhythms during a person's lifespan, although few doctors believe they correspond to those described as "biorhythms". Biochronometry has shown that rhythm and cycles such as the circadian (from the Latin circa and dia; literally, "about a day") exist. These discoveries, among others, have shown that people are affected by physiological, emotional and intellectual rhythms (thouigh the exact relationships to the biorhythm cycles are not precisely understood). Studies in this (some say, self-described) protoscience are still being done regarding the effects of biorhythm on the human condition.
The theory is sometimes treated as falsely claiming scientific validity. Biorhythm critic responses range from opposing it as harmful through ignoring it to accepting it as entertainment. Some biorhythm critics raise one or more of the following criticisms for the various theories that fall under the category of Biorhythmics:
- Arbitrary assumption of sinusoidal cycles,
- Arbitrary assumption of a neutral baseline,
- Inadequate quantitative generalizations of complex human behavior,
- Non-precise formulations of existing theories,
- Peer review failures of experimetntal data,
- Replication failures, and
- Some unscrupulous practitioners resemblance to the professional fortune-telling fraud artists
History
The classical theory originated at the turn of the 19th century, between 1897 and 1902, from observational research.
Dr. Hermann Swoboda into the possibility of a rhythmic change in mood and health. (Professor of Psychology, University of Vienna) on periodic variations in fevers. He collected data on reaction to pain, outbreak of fevers, illnesses, asthma, heart attacks, and recurrent dreams. He concluded that there was a 23-day physical cycle and a 28-day emotional cycle.
Dr. Wilhelm Fliess (nose and throat specialist; reportedly a numerologist) independently was researching the occurrences of fevers, recurrent illnesses and deaths in his patients. He too came to the conclusion that there was a 23 and a 28-day rhythm. Fleiss's theories were of great interest and importance to Sigmund Freud during his early work in developing his psychoanalytic concepts.
Alfred Teltseher (professor of engineering; University of Innsbruck, Austria) observed that his students' good days and bad days followed a rhythmic pattern of 33 days. Teltscher found that the brain's ability to absorb, mental ability,and alertness ran in 33 day cycles. Dr. Rexford Hersey (psychologist; Pennsylvania, America) in the 1920s reportedly made contributions to the classical theory also.
These three biorhythms compose the classical theory. The classical theory has been studied, especially in Germany, Japan, and the United States, with conflicting results. Various modern deriviatives exist of the classical theory.
See also
List of protosciences
List of speculative or fringe theories
