Holism, Mental and Semantic
https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.html

The opposite of holism is atomism, not reductionism.

Am I correct in my thinking? — musicpianoaccordion

Have a glance at this article about one of the originators of the idea of holism in philosophy.

1. What do you think about how people use "holistic approach"? Used in the wrong way? — musicpianoaccordion

Not really. Holistic is mostly encountered in the field of medicine, i.e. holistic health practices.

2. Are "reductionism vs holism" really that helpful? — musicpianoaccordion

Reductionism is one of the pernicious tendencies of modern philosophy. It's criticized by its antagonists as 'nothing but-ism' - examples being, humans are nothing but collections of atoms (or cells or molecules or whatever), the mind is nothing but the brain, the universe is nothing but matter.

3. Aristotle issupposed to have said that "The whole is more than the sum of its parts.". Does it make him a supporter of holism and an antireductionist? — musicpianoaccordion

His philosophy was later called hylomorphism, where hyle is matter (literally, 'timber') and morphe is form. The forms of Aristotle are descended from Plato's ideas (eidos), different in some important respects but with an underlying similarity. Generally, Plato and Aristotle were opposed to reductionism

4. For me as a musician — musicpianoaccordion

Music can obviously be very complex but at the same time it expresses simple principles albeit in a highly dynamic and textured way.

I have heard about "reductionism vs holism" in psychology and therefore thought about how they must be antonyms.
So when we have "A vs B" A and B do not have to be opposites?

"Music can obviously be very complex but at the same time it expresses simple principles albeit in a highly dynamic and textured way."
That's true. When I read that reductionism can be "the sum can be explained by its parts" I was a bit confused. That can't be what it really means. Is that just a bad definition?

I study philosophy but it is mostly pedagogy (which is also psychology).
complex phenomena should be explained by the simplest underlying principles possible.

When I read that
"complex phenomena should be explained by the simplest underlying principles possible." I was also confused. That doesn't sound linw reductionism. It sounds like "lets beeak down a bigger task into smaller tasks". Sounds like good pedagogy.
What do you think?

Is pedagogy more psychology than philosophy?
It seems to be both at the same time.
What I should say is that I did take a course in Thomas Aquinas. I learned a lot but hylomorphism.
After taking that course I read a little on hermeneutics. I really liked that. It had a lot to do with pedagogy. It felt like it was both philosophy and psychology at the same time. Even linguistics.
What do you experts say?

When I read that reductionism can be "the sum can be explained by its parts" I was a bit confused. That can't be what it really means. Is that just a bad definition? — musicpianoaccordion

No, it’s a fair definition. Reductionism definitely has its uses. It is used to break down complex systems into their simplest components and understand how they work together. It has many uses in all kinds of engineering and scientific disciplines. But when it’s applied to philosophy it is often inappropriate as it is a very engineering or science-based attitude. The way I would put it is that reductionism is the consequence of trying to apply scientific method to philosophical problems. That’s definitely a problem.

I think that you are into something.
We have methods and we have philosophy, right?
That's the same thing with hermeneutics: it is methods and philosophy. It is also psychology (which was viewed as a part of philosophy in the past).

Are "reductionism vs holism" really that helpful? — musicpianoaccordion

I was a civil engineer, often a very reductionist discipline. Example - storm sewer design. When you design a sewer system to handle stormwater, i.e. water resulting from rain or snow, on a property, regulations and standards of practice say you only have to take into account the maximum flow leaving the site. That doesn't take into account the time and sequence of flow on your property and in the system as a whole. Result - inadequate capacity and flooding. A holistic approach would take into account the effects of changes in flow from your property on the system as a whole. Problem - it's very hard, and expensive, to do that.

On the other hand, if you are a particle physicist, focusing in on a very limited piece of the puzzle can be very effective and necessary. It's when principles learned from reductionist study in the laboratory or at CERN are taken out into the complex world at human scale that things can fall apart.

Here's a link to an influential article I like a lot that lays out the holistic/reductionist ways of seeing things with a focus on emergence - "More is Different." Emergence can put the kibosh on the idea of the whole being the sum of it's parts.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.177.4047.393

Here's another link to a discussion here on the forum - "Reductionism and the Hierarchy of Scale." Focus on @apokrisis's posts. He has a unique perspective, at least here on the forum. It's one I've had to work to grasp. I'm still working.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12626/reductionism-and-the-hierarchy-of-scale

In philosophy I often hear about how reductionism and holism are antonyms. — musicpianoaccordion

In philosophical arguments, Reductionism & Holism are typically presented as contrasting worldviews or belief systems. But in reality, they are complementary. Both are merely ways of understanding our complex, and ever-changing, world from different frames of reference. Reductionism simply chops complexity into bits & bytes that the human mind can deal with, and then draws general conclusions by adding those parts back together. Yet, Holism is a way of looking, not at the characteristics of individual components of a system, but at how the system functions as a whole. Moreover, each sub-component can also be viewed as a Holon, with essential properties of its own.

Scientists eventually realized that Reductionism was missing something important. So, they developed a new method of investigation, called Systems Theory. Which is merely Holism with a more technical sounding name. :cool:


Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a unique function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


Holism vs Reductionism :
Holistic (synthetic) thinking is a common characteristic of New Age philosophies. But in practice, they also include particular inherited beliefs, such as those in Eastern religions. Such woo-ish notions as Wandering Souls, and Weaponized Chi, are not inherent to Holism. But hostile Reductionists tend to lump them together with the Holistic worldview. So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page24.html

You're comparing apples and oranges. The opposite of reductionism is non-reductionism. The opposite of holism is atomism. There may be connections between the two - that is, perhaps atomism might imply non-reductionism about some matters. But they're concerned with different matters. Crudely, reductionism is about what something is made of. By contrast, holism is about how a property behaves.

So, a holist about normative reasons, for instance, is someone who thinks that whether or not a particular feature gives rise to a normative reason to do something always depends on the context in which it is present. For example, if you have a funny joke about death up your sleave, then whether this gives rise to you having reason to tell it to someone depends on the context you're in. If you're at a funeral, then you have reason not to tell it. If you're in a bar, then you do.

An atomist about normative reasons would be someone who held that at least some features give rise to normative reasons regardless of context. Atomists and holists disagree, then, about the behaviour of features. (And needless to say, one can be a holist about some features and an atomist about others).

But anyway, the point is that holism and atomism are theories about the behaviour of features.

By contrast reductionism is about what something is made of (not how it behaves - though of course, that can have implications about what it is made of). A reductionist about normative reasons would be someone who thinks normative reasons can be reduced to other features. That is, they do not believe that normative reasons are basic constituents of the universe, but are composed of yet more basic materials.

So, holism is not the opposite of reductionism. That's not to deny that there may be tensions between the two views - as I say, how something behaves can have implications for what it is made of - but the point is that they're completely different kinds of theory, not opposites of each other.

Those definitions are incorrect.

Holism is a view about how features behave. It is not a theory about what something is made of or how it arises.

Note, one can be an emergentist about a property and yet deny holism about that property. There is no logical connection between the two.

For example, imagine you are an emergentist about mental properties - that is, you believe that mental properties emerge from, but are not reducible to, physical states of the brain.

Well, that doesn't mean that one is a holist about mental properties. For one could, entirely consistently, maintain that certain arrangements of physical matter invariably give rise to mental properties.

I suggest those definitions have been cooked up by those in a discipline other than philosophy or some well meaning ignorant fool on the internet. (And yes, having clicked on it, it is clearly the latter. Blogs are not peer reviewed. In fact, it seems to be YOUR blog. Theyhave the same name, anyway. Somewhat misleading if true, don't you think!? To quote yourself and not say that that's what you're doing?).

We have methods and we have philosophy, right?
That's the same thing with hermeneutics: it is methods and philosophy. It is also psychology (which was viewed as a part of philosophy in the past).

Much of what we discuss is actually both about practical methods and philosophy.
I've been told that reductionnism is more of a method than or a specific philosophical ism. It has been stated above by Wayfare, I think. I could have missunderstood. That ussually happens.

Is it really an -ism at all?

With eg the discussion of empathy in hermeneutics we have both a discussion about the theory of it (philosophy?) and the practical application (pedagogy, psychology?).
I actually tried to study philosophy at school but it was too theoretical and not very practical. When I told the teacher about it he said that he understood.
What do you think?


"I suggest those definitions have been cooked up by those in a discipline other than philosophy or some well meaning ignorant fool on the internet"
It even said that holism is a part if New age. My understanding is that the terms oneness and pantheism are used in New age. Holistic approach is another term used.
Holism doesn't really describe new age even though it might be related to it in some ways.

We've done the analysis and should now do the synthesis?

I was a civil engineer, often a very reductionist discipline. Example - storm sewer design. When you design a sewer system to handle stormwater, i.e. water resulting from rain or snow, on a property, regulations and standards of practice say you only have to take into account the maximum flow leaving the site. That doesn't take into account the time and sequence of flow on your property and in the system as a whole. Result - inadequate capacity and flooding. A holistic approach would take into account the effects of changes in flow from your property on the system as a whole. Problem - it's very hard, and expensive, to do that. — T Clark

That's an interesting example of the Reductive vs Holistic approach to problems. It reminded me of New Orleans before & after hurricane Katrina. After that disaster, the Civil engineers and Corp of Engineers were criticized, in retrospect, for not anticipating all the things that can go wrong. But, before the hurricane, it was well-known that the city was in danger of inundation, because most of it was below sea, river & lake level. The city itself was it was situated like a bathtub, surrounded by water on all sides, and with only one way out : down the drain, but with the stopper in place. For good practical reasons though, engineers are typically narrowly-focused on a particular technical problem. But, NO was a multi-faceted deterministic disaster, just waiting for the first deluge domino to fall.

As required by regulations, the engineers prepared for a hundred year storm, and didn't worry about a 200 year storm. But the holistic problem included more than just routine levee design, flood hydraulics, pipe carrying capacity, and pump removal capacity. NO also had wider economic, ecological, and political issues, that engineers don't get paid to deal with. Yet, Holistic thinkers, including some engineers, with a wider perspective, had been warning for years about the potential for a Titanic-scale tragedy. But like Cassandra, their prophecies of inevitable cataclysm were dismissed by narrow-minded bean-counters and myopic politicians, with attenuated agendas of their own.

Reductionism is appropriate for relatively simple, predictable problems. But compounded complexity results in too many possible paths for things to go wrong, and some paths are contradictory. So, that's where a Holistic approach is needed : to look for potential problems that are not obvious in independent parts (levees, pipes, pumps, etc), but emerge only from interdependent factors that multiply possible paths. To plot a feasible pathway out of the convoluted labyrinth of natural & man-made hazards. Fortunately, there are now scientists & engineers who are focused holistically on the dynamics of complexity, especially Complex Adaptive Systems. :smile:


Santa Fe Institute :
https://www.santafe.edu/

Systems Theory/Holism :
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism

I agree with what you've written.

I've been told that reductionnism is more of a method than or a specific philosophical ism — musicpianoaccordion

It's true, that Reductionism is a primary intellectual tool of modern Science -- ever since the Enlightenment rebellion against Theological Science. Which could be construed as Holistic, in the sense that certain Theories were presented as Dogma, and intended to be swallowed whole, by Faith not Reason. Gallileo was a prime example of that new way of thinking. He looked at stars objectively (relative to each other), instead of subjectively (relative to the observer). Hence, he came to reject certain ancient astronomical theories, inherited from ancient Greeks, and presented as dogma by the church.

However, that new method (based on natural laws), was so successful, that over time, it became just as much a matter of faith for some, as Aristotelian Geocentrism (based on divine laws) had been for the medieval Catholic Church. The modern canonized version of that practical-rational-objective method is now known as the doctrine of Scientism. For adherents of that philosophical belief system (an -ism) it's not just a procedural method, but the sole source of Truth. And its primary abomination is subjective intuitive Faith, which is prejudicially associated with the presumed gullible attitude of Holism, and mystical New Ageism .

But Holism is also a scientific method, and the basis of Systems Theory, as applied to problems that are too large, or complex, or convoluted for the simplistic Reductive approach. Just as modern Reductionism is historically-related to the ancient philosophy of Atomism (Democritus), Modern Systems Theory is related to the ancient Holistic philosophy of Aristotle. But the modern term "holism" was only coined in 1926 ,by a philosopher-statesman, as a new/old method for studying evolution, among other complex processes. As I said before, these methods are not necessarily opposites, but complementary. It's only when they are adopted as an exclusive all-encompassing belief system that they become antagonistic. :smile:

PS___Since you seem to be interested in the application of Holism to Music,
Mathematical music analysis: a holistic approach :
https://esploro.libs.uga.edu/esploro/outputs/graduate/Mathematical-music-analysis-a-holistic-approach/9949333473302959

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best oronly objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning.
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/

In the Metaphysics, Aristotle captures the idea of holism in his statement that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.”
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_holism.html

Holism (from Ancient Greek ὅλος (hólos) 'all, whole, entire', and -ism) is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

"I suggest those definitions have been cooked up by those in a discipline other than philosophy or some well meaning ignorant fool on the internet"
It even said that holism is a part if New age. My understanding is that the terms oneness and pantheism are used in New age. Holistic approach is another term used.
Holism doesn't really describe new age even though it might be related to it in some ways.

We've done the analysis and should now do the synthesis? — musicpianoaccordion

Holism is the view that there are holes, indeed that everything is a hole.

Reductionism is the view that we ought to make things smaller.

And holism and reductionism can actually work together.

Yes, that would involve making holes smaller.

Yes, that would involve making holes smaller. — Bartricks

Is this when you make half a hole?

That's a matter of debate among reductionist holists. Some would argue that you cannot make a hole smaller just by dividing it up,anymore than one can make a pizza larger by cutting it into more slices (although there were some pizzist expansionists in 1920s Austria - and Thickmanstein was briefly one - but it's now been discredited thanks to the work of Stupidda).

@Gnomon & @OP

Reductionism: 1 + 2 = 3. Everything about the whole (3) is explicable in terms of its parts (1, 2).

Holism: 2H + O = H₂O. As Gnomon pointed out, wetness (water) is inexplicable with the properties of hydrogen or oxygen.

Reductionism: 1 + 2 = 3. Everything about the whole (3) is explicable in terms of its parts (1, 2).
Holism: 2H + O = H2O. As Gnomon pointed out, wetness (water) is inexplicable with the properties of hydrogen or oxygen. — Agent Smith

Good comparison. The key distinction here is that Reductionism deals with Quanta (discrete isolated objects) while Holism deals with Qualia (continuous integrated systems). Quanta includes particular things that can be known via physical senses (i.e. empirical). Qualia includes essences that make a thing what it is, and can be known only via meta-physical Reason (i.e. inference). After the birth of modern science immaterial essences (spirits) were excluded -- for good reasons -- from pragmatic studies. Yet, since the birth of the ironically-named Quantum Mechanics*1, it became necessary for Science to once again deal with whole systems, because the entangled sub-atomic "parts" can't be dealt with in isolation.

For example, Quarks (the hypothetical components of Protons, Neutrons, etc) are never found alone, but in trinities. And they are impossible to measure individually, so some scientists question if they are even real. Similarly, since all electrons seem to be simple & identical, John A. Wheeler proposed that there is only one electron in the universe*3. That theory may have been presented with tongue-in-cheek, because it couldn't be proven empirically. But it is suggestive of a universal holistic system, in which a single Universal Potential*4 is shared among all local instances.

An even murkier instance of Holistic Qualia may be illustrated in both Physical & Meta-Physical phase transitions*5. Scientists can measure the different properties of Water (liquid), Ice (solid), & Steam (gas), but they can't explain where those previously hidden properties came from. However, a philosophical (metaphysical) rationale is that H2O molecules have Potential (ideal) properties, as a whole system, that only Emerge*6 -- become Actual (real) -- under pre-specified environmental conditions.

Of course, hard-line Reductionists might be uncomfortable with the spooky spiritual implications of that hypothesis. Metaphorically, an unexpressed quality is like an invisible Soul, that animates or de-animates a tangible body. But, from the Systems Theory perspective, that's just the way Nature works : transforming Potential into Actual, and vice versa. Now you see it, now you don't. What's spooky about that? :joke:


*1. Quantum Holism : the defining feature of the quantum scale is Entanglement, which is immeasurable and holistic, hence known only by non-quantifiable Qualia.

*2. Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

*3. One Electron Theory :
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if-every-electron-was-the-same-electron/

*4. Universal Potential : compare with Platonic Forms : "ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms",[5] are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

*5. Emergent Phase Transitions :
<< Evaporation, Condensation, Freezing, Melting, Sublimation & Deposition. Substances on Earth can exist in one of four phases, but mostly, they exist in one of three: solid, liquid or gas.>>
* Metaphysical phase changes are those we can imagine, but not sense. Somehow, inanimate matter transforms into living beings, yet we can’t detect the exact moment or location of the transition. Similarly, tangled masses of living tissue, such as the slimey tentacles of neurons, somehow cause a new non-physical function to emerge : Mind.
* If you know that these transformations are fundamentally changes in metaphysical information qualities, rather than physical material quantities, then the mystery becomes merely a common case of statistical probabilities, like tumbling dice. Laymen may have a problem with the equations, so metaphysical terms, like “cause” or “create” may be better understood.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

*6. Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Lovely exposition! Kudos & danke!

My friend used to keep telling me, when in an inebriated state, "Smith, 2 + 2 $\neq$ 4". :snicker:

Holism is not the opposite of reductionism!

You do realize Gnomon doesn't know what he's talking about?

Gnomon seems to be confusing holism with 'whole-ism'.

Holism is not the opposite of reductionism! — Bartricks

Why?

You do realize Gnomon doesn't know what he's talking about? — Bartricks

There you're likely mistaken. Who am I though to speak for @Gnomon. If you have any issues, take it up with the man himself.

Gnomon seems to be confusing holism with 'whole-ism'. — Bartricks

Expand and elaborate, please.

Reductionism is any view that 'reduces' one thing to something else. It is the view that x is made of y.

Its opposite is non-reductionism.

Holism is a view about the behaviour of features. Namely, it is the view that how a feature behaves depends on context.

Its opposite is atomism.

Holism is not the opposite of reductionism! — Bartricks
Why? — Agent Smith

Apparently. Bartricks prefers a very narrow exclusive definition of "holism", whereas I favor a broader, more inclusive, interpretation. Historically, you have many versions to choose from : Pythagoras, Aristotle, Taoism, Holistic Medicine, etc. So, how you use the term may be a matter of personal taste. Hence, my personal usage is based on Jan Smut's philosophical book Holism and Evolution. Yet, for the purposes of my Enformationism thesis, I have also expanded the context of the term "Holism" to include Reductionism, as the other side of the Whole coin.

From that comprehensive (holistic) perspective, Holism and Reductionism are not "opposites" but complements as in the Yin/Yang symbol. And both are research methods used in modern science. Yet, the comprehensive definition makes more sense in view of my "non-classical" BothAnd logic. It's understandable that -- due to his classical, exclusive, two-value, Black or White, Either/Or definition -- Bartricks doesn't know what I'm talking about. :smile:

Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic is Ideal (god-like), but not Real (natural intelligence)

Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. ___Wikipedia
Note -- Fuzzy Logic is how humans reason, and how quantum physics works

Holism is the idea that various systems should be viewed as wholes, not merely as a collection of parts. The term "holism" was coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. ___Wikipedia

Holism and Evolution is a 1926 book by South African statesman Jan Smuts, in which he coined the word "holism", although Smuts' meaning differs from the modern concept of holism. Smuts defined holism as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." ___Wiki
Note -- My coinage for that progressive, expansive, evolutionary factor is holistic "Enformy" : the power or tendency to create novel forms & species. That's how the amorphous Big Bang plasma, eventually condensed into quantum particles, then atoms & molecules, then stars & galaxies, and thence to living thinking creatures. If evolution was Reductive, nothing new would ever emerge from the random roiling of thermodynamics.

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

ANALYSIS + SYNTHESIS = HOLISM

No, I just know what I am talking about. You don't. You are just talking hippy nonsense. I imagine that if I asked you for a cup of tea you would make me some ghastly undrinkable sludgy gritty substance made from stewed bracken and a ton of bonkers spices. That's what your definitions are like.

@Gnomon @Bartricks

Looks like, as is common, the word "holism" has different meanings - from the tenor of our discussions we're already aware of two:

Holism¹: As pertaining to your EnFormAction Thesis, inclusive and hence takes within its fold reductionism as one of a pair of opposites.

Holism²: In this case, the antithesis of reductionism viz. the intuition or conviction that there's something about the whole that's inexplicable as the mere sum of its parts.

Looks like, as is common, the word "holism" has different meanings - from the tenor of our discussions we're already aware of two: — Agent Smith

Of course. That's why the first rule of philosophical dialog is "define your terms". Otherwise, each participant may make unwarranted assumptions that don't match the other's meaning. For example, Bartrick seems to associate "Holism" with "peace & love spouting, weirdo-counter-cultural, long-haired hippie freaks", or with "incense burning, pot smoking, crystal gazing, mantra chanting, New Age nuts". But those prejudices have nothing to do with my personal understanding and usage of "Holism".

That's why my posts typically include several links to websites and quotes from experts. To help define my usage of controversial terms, and to show that you don't just have to take my personal definition as authoritative. For me, Holism is a philosophical, not religious topic. The basic concept of Holism goes back to Aristotle, and has a long Western history, apart from the recent influx of Eastern religious and philosophical notions. Yet, the definitive spelling & explanation of a wholistic approach for a scientific context was published in the early 20th century, just as Einstein's Relativity and Bohr's Quantum Theory were raising eyebrows among classically-trained scientists.

My personal interest in Holism is primarily scientific, since it is essential to understanding the apparent weirdness of Quantum Theory, and to grasping the multiple roles -- physical & metaphysical -- of Generic Information in the real world. The Quantum realm is now considered to be the intangible foundation of material reality. But from a classical science perspective, it seems to verge into Mysticism. In fact, many of the early pioneers of Quantum Physics were accused of being mystics, not because of any anti-science inclinations, but due to the exotic language of Eastern philosophy they adopted, when the jargon of Reductive Science didn't apply to what they were seeing in their experiments.

The bottom line is that I have built my personal philosophical worldview around the shocking new paradigms of the 20th century -- Relativity, Quantum Physics & Information Theory -- that have become mainstream, among scientists, in the 21st century. So, my ideas may seem perverse to anyone still laboring under an outdated classical worldview. :nerd:

PS__"No, I just know what I am talking about. You don't. You are just talking hippy nonsense." Bartricks will deny it, but he's making the One-Word-One-Meaning fallacy. Which is the opposite of the Equivocation Fallacy, where one word is deliberately used with different meanings. He is implying that his personal definition of the word "Holism" -- as Mysticism -- is the only true meaning.

PPS__Bartricks claims that his definition of "Holism" is the correct philosophical meaning; but doesn't give a reference. However, the man who coined the term "Holism" defined it's meaning as the "fundamental factor operative towards the creation of wholes in the universe." And that is how I use it. But what did he mean by "fundamental factor"? He also explained that in terms of physical Evolution of complex systems from simple elements. If you want philosophical authority, that ancient "hippy" Aristotle summarized the concept 2500 years ago as "The whole is more than the sum of its parts". Ironically, Ari used the Greek word hylos (literally "forest"), to imply that some of us "can't see the whole forest for the individual trees". I don't know where Bartricks got his indefinite definition : "a view about how properties behave".

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another.“ ___Voltaire.

One Word, One Meaning Fallacy :
https://prezi.com/8emq5xzndwnj/one-word-one-meaning-fallacy/