Molecules in motion is one thing. Pressure, temperature and volume is another. — Frederick KOH
Isn't the very idea of abstraction leaving things out? — Frederick KOH
Isn't the very idea of abstraction leaving things out? — Frederick KOH
So reductionism = abstraction? Have we changed the subject just to avoid you answering my question about a failure to be able to compute protein folding even from a complete knowledge of the local bonds in play? — apokrisis
One crucial non-reductionist (or pluralist) point — Pierre-Normand
Ornithologists don't expect to be able to derive everything from chemical bonds either. — Frederick KOH
So what is stopping them in your view? It would be possible right? — apokrisis
What is never silly is the perspective, provided by reductionism, that apart from historical accidents these things ultimately are the way they are because of the
fundamental principles of physics. — Frederick KOH
Using calculations by hand you can't model anything more complicated than the hydrogen atom. Computers are used for more complicated atoms. — Frederick KOH
Finally...
Is this reductionist:
(Weinberg) "When Edelman says that a person cannot be reduced to molecu-
lar interactions, is he saying anything different (except in degree)
than a botanist or a meteorologist who says that a rose or a thun-
derstorm cannot be reduced to molecular interactions? It may or
may not be silly to pursue reductionist programs of research on
complicated systems that are strongly conditioned by history, like
brains or roses or thunderstorms. What is never silly is the per-
spective, provided by reductionism, that apart from historical ac-
cidents these things ultimately are the way they are because of the
fundamental principles of physics." — Frederick KOH
What is never silly is the per-
spective, provided by reductionism, that apart from historical ac-
cidents these things ultimately are the way they are because of the
fundamental principles of physics." — Frederick KOH
Weinberg's denial of the autonomy of emergent domains of scientific explanation seems to rest on the belief that the affirmation of such an autonomy amounts to a denial that the laws and principles formulated at this higher-level can have any explanation. — Pierre-Normand
Weinberg endorses a form of reductionism that doesn't purport to be pragmatic or methodological but rather amounts to a metaphysical claim regarding "the way the world is" empirically found to be. — Pierre-Normand
It seems not to occur to him that "arrows of explanation" can have a genuine scientific explanatory role even when they don't tend to converge toward a unique "final" theory of everything. — Pierre-Normand
When a protein acts as a message to a system, is that covered by Weinberg's reductionist ontology? — apokrisis
In his texts, his actual references to other sciences and the views expressed about them contradict what you say. — Frederick KOH
He gave an example using chicken soup and the King's touch. Is the outright dismissal of the King's Touch metaphysics? — Frederick KOH
Lack of reduction doesn't amount to magic. — Pierre-Normand
he believes then all to be less "fundamental" than particle physics. — Pierre-Normand
It seems not to occur to him that "arrows of explanation" can have a genuine scientific explanatory role even when they don't tend to converge toward a unique "final" theory of everything. — Pierre-Normand
And the reason that is never silly, is because God's Laws have now been replaced by The Laws of Physics, and God has become a ghost in his own machine. Amen. — Wayfarer
Is this reductionist:
'What is never silly is the perspective, provided by reductionism, that apart from historical accidents these things ultimately are the way they are because of the fundamental principles of physics. — Frederick KOH
scientists are the opposite of priests — Frederick KOH
Quote him. — Frederick KOH
Not any more, they're not. — Wayfarer
The greatest honours go to the scientists who overthrow the most established "Laws". — Frederick KOH
What about the chicken soup? We treat it differently from the King's Touch without having first reduced it. — Frederick KOH
It is the lack of confidence that there might be a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) explanation of the healing power the King's Trough that undermines our faith in the genuineness of the phenomenon. — Pierre-Normand
Are they equivalent? — Frederick KOH
When a protein "acts as a message to a system" the steps can either be broken down into interactions explained by chemistry or there are people trying to do that. — Frederick KOH
What is behind this privileging of naturalistic explanations? — Frederick KOH
Hah. I'm glad this turned out to be just an extended in-joke and you don't want to make any serious point.
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.