Back in the day, Reductionism was an innovative method of analysis of Nature. Not only was it required to break-down complex systems into bite-size chunks our baby teeth could masticate, it was also a way to work around the authority of the church, which made outdated religious and philosophical dogma into big beliefs, to be swallowed whole. Unfortunately, we have ridden the horse of Reductionism about as far as it will carry us. That's why the cutting-edge of Science is venturing into holistic Systems Theory, and Complexity Theory, and even Quantum Indeterminism.Only to the interpretation of the body of these results as implying reductionism. — Pantagruel
That's why Science must evolve or die out. Reductionism and Determinism are endangered species. But their fittest genes are still working in those newer forms of scientific investigation.Science by its very nature is incomplete — Pantagruel
That's why Science must evolve or die out. Reductionism and Determinism are endangered species. But their fittest genes are still working in those newer forms of scientific investigation. — Gnomon
And I firmly believe the best method of analysis of it is historical and in terms of the history of ideas. It might sound like a very general phrase, but actually it's a specific sub-discipline which you will encounter in some schools of philosophy, comparative religion and cultural history. — Wayfarer
Reductionism just says that one thing is made entirely out of another thing, not that the former doesn't exist at all and only the latter does. — Pfhorrest
Yes, I have read 3 volumes of the works of Dilthey, — Pantagruel
Kudos :pray: . That's an achievement in its own right. — Wayfarer
↪Pantagruel German culture has 'Geisteswissenschaften', science of spirit, something sorely lacking in Anglo-American culture. — Wayfarer
Unfortunately this isn't understood and there is this idea at least at a unconscious level that reductionism is possible, if we just have better computers, better theories, better data. This thinking simply doesn't understand that there to be a causal relationship doesn't mean that every question made can be answered going down the causal relationship to smaller parts. — ssu
Because you lack the information needed to understand the question that needs more than the part.I agree that for obvious practical reasons this kind of reductionism is not feasable, but why do you think that it would be impossible in principle? — ChatteringMonkey
I agree that for obvious practical reasons this kind of reductionism is not feasable, but why do you think that it would be impossible in principle?
— ChatteringMonkey
Because you lack the information needed to understand the question that needs more than the part. — ssu
From the questions themselves. Questions define what kind of information we look for. We create these complex things in order to explain complex phenomena. We can see a causal relationship from some specific vantage point going, but the questions aren't anymore answerable.Where does additional information come in then? — ChatteringMonkey
And if the answer would be that "we have to be more holistic, take into consideration larger amount of interactions", then that wouldn't be reductionistic, would it? — ssu
Reductionism in science is the idea of unity of science: that different special sciences present different aspects of the same fundamental order of nature. If you believe that such an order is at least plausible, then you should not find the idea of reductionism objectionable. — SophistiCat
Isn't it a bit more than this? That the special sciences are in principle replaceable by a single fundamental science, usually physics. That means causation is bottom up, and there's no strong emergence of any entirely novel properties. — Marchesk
Just that the complex upper levels are analyzable in terms of simpler lower levels, all the way down to the simplest of things. — Pfhorrest
Isn't it a bit more than this? That the special sciences are in principle replaceable by a single fundamental science, usually physics. That means causation is bottom up, and there's no strong emergence of any entirely novel properties. — Marchesk
The line between a reductionist approach and a non-reductionist approach is pretty clear, and I don't want to get bogged down in versioning. — Pantagruel
Pfhorrest
2.1k
↪Pantagruel ...and their arrangements?
A 200lb pile of graphite and a 200lb solid diamond grandfather clock are both just 200lbs of carbon atoms, but the arrangement of those atoms makes all the difference. Saying that does not go against the reducibility of them both. — Pfhorrest
So clear that you still haven't managed to identify it. Reductionism isn't even an ontological thesis, and yet the actual target of your vague vituperations seems to be some cartoonish eliminativism. — SophistiCat
Observations? It's intended to be more of a synthesizing exercise, bringing some concepts and points of view together, in the context of my own understanding. Several people appear comfortable with the way reductionism is being characterized, it's neither complicated nor a far reach. — Pantagruel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.