Living beings as Claude Bernard Claude Bernard had made the surprising discovery that the "inert" and "living bodies" are not the same thing. He wrote "The spontaneity is not inert in itself, is not an individual difference, and therefore one can be certain of the results. However, when dealing with a living, individuality brings a disturbing element of complexity beyond the external conditions need to consider intrinsic organic reactions, which give the name of 'inner environment' (milieu int rieur) . Claude Bernard had begun to understand. Their discovery was obviously due to the whole series of failed experiments conducted, having never been able to obtain twice the same result followed in his essays, and this discovery greatly troubled him because he threatened to show the futility of his life as " scientist. "Perhaps the relentless bugs that were constantly emerging of his vivisection had begun to upset their mental state. In any case, damaged his literary vein, clouding their reasoning style and paralyzing her. Introduction Because if clearly expressed ideas whose inaccuracy only with the passage of time would be proven in M decine thinking is cloudy and the author expresses no sense, and end of the following excerpt (page 249): "Have you ever wondered how can one reach valid conclusions when there are substances that are poisonous to some animals but not so for others, and substances that are poisonous to humans but not animals.We have mentioned the porcupine is not poisoned by prussic acid consumption, the goat that eats belladonna without problems, the sheep can eat huge amounts of arsenic without suffering lethal effects, the toads that are not poisoned by their own poison, animals water that are capable of producing electric shocks without suffering the consequences and the marine animals that are not damaged by the influence of salt. Everything you just mentioned is inadequate as an explanation. In fact, if you admit what science would be impossible. " Rereading his conclusion, Claude Bernard had to realize that clarification was needed and added a note become even worse: "You have to be a slave of a fact, one can say that is a brutal fact, as if what he said was very scientist. Certainly one has to believe in facts, but should not blindly believe them. We have the reasoning to shed light on the facts, and facts to temper the imagination and stop thinking.Therefore, the experimenter who poisons a toad with its own poison without results, belladonna or a goat with no results, will say: 'I'm consistent, yes, but there are facts that one can not believe because the mind is satisfied that things are otherwise. For that reason I could not believe the data provided by the toad. If it had succeeded would have given up my career as a physiologist. Dr. Delhoume, which introduced copious notes elsewhere in the volume, chose to ignore this latest blunder Bernard, perhaps hoping to pass unnoticed, because although his words were confusing and messy show that he realizes that the facts ridiculed his theories. So decide to simply ignore "the facts" related to the toad and the goat, because otherwise we would have "waived his occupation as a physiologist.Like many vivisectors of many that have existed after him, Claude Bernard lacked the necessary grandeur to admit that all their pseudoscience had been built on a mistake of gigantic proportions. For that reason makes the extraordinary claim that "there are facts that one can not believe because the mind is satisfied that things are otherwise." What facts are those Or what kind of "mind" is that It is possible that the same mind who once said: "If an event is inconsistent with a dominant theory, one must accept the fact and has to abandon the theory, although the latter has been generally accepted and has been ratified by renowned personalities. In the conceptual, Bernard proposed a framework to understand what are the bodies, which proved to be endowed with a great heuristic value.With his concept of "internal environment" was legitimized the claim-which has been challenged by the skepticism of Magendie, for Bichat's vitalism, and the thesis of the romantics to a real medical science, while safeguarding the peculiar ontological status of living beings.