11–20 of 41 posts
Why does scientific reductionism need an antidote? "antidote to scientific reductionism" seems about as useful as "antidote to nonblindness".
If you have to ask, you will never know.
It would be a good question for a Voight-Kampff test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we wouldn't have any concepts of art or beauty or music or many of the things that seem to make life worth living.
Why would reductionism reduce the majesty of complexity? Cellular automata are about as simple and reductionist as you can get, but they produce breathtaking complexity. Conway's game of life is simply brilliant. Reduction gives your appreciation new depths.
Because we (well, some of us) don't really like breathtaking complexity that's reducible to some simple rules.
Or at least don't like that kind of complexity to be the norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would reductionism reduce the majesty of complexity? Cellular automata are about as simple and reductionist as you can get, but they produce breathtaking complexity. Conway's game of life is simply brilliant. Reduction gives your appreciation new depths.
> Why would reductionism reduce the majesty of complexity? Cellular automata are about as simple and reductionist as you can get, but they produce breathtaking complexity. Because we (well, some of us) don't really like breathtaking complexity that's reducible to some simple rules. Or at least don't like that kind of complexity to be the norm.
It says there are certain elements that interact with each other in certain ways. It does not concern itself with the nature of configurations of such elements, and how those evolve. These may be extremely complex configurations, of huge numbers of the elements, that evolve in very complex ways.
A really important point about this, which is usually misunderstood, is that "does not concern itself with" is not the same as "dismisses" or "views as invalid or unimportant".
Also, this is not a matter of what we "like" or "dislike". It's a matter of how reality is or isn't, and what we like or dislike has no bearing on that.
Why does scientific reductionism need an antidote? "antidote to scientific reductionism" seems about as useful as "antidote to nonblindness".
> Why does scientific reductionism need an antidote? If you have to ask, you will never know. It would be a good question for a Voight-Kampff test.
... but if it makes you more comfortable to think that people who disagree with you, aren't actually people ... then go right ahead.
Why does scientific reductionism need an antidote? "antidote to scientific reductionism" seems about as useful as "antidote to nonblindness".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would reductionism reduce the majesty of complexity? Cellular automata are about as simple and reductionist as you can get, but they produce breathtaking complexity. Conway's game of life is simply brilliant. Reduction gives your appreciation new depths.
> Why would reductionism reduce the majesty of complexity? Cellular automata are about as simple and reductionist as you can get, but they produce breathtaking complexity. Because we (well, some of us) don't really like breathtaking complexity that's reducible to some simple rules. Or at least don't like that kind of complexity to be the norm.
And if investigation reveals that all art and music are governed by simple rules, you're suddenly going to dislike all art and music? How precisely does revealing the hidden reality suddenly reduce how pleasing something is to the senses?
Seeing the title I thought this article was going to be about the "problem" of reductionism. But it delightfully doesn't fall into that trap and acknowledges that reductionism to the lowest useful components does not necessarily imply low complexity. Then goes on to express wonderment at the remaining complexity after reductionism. That's fine, I guess. Just as long as we all remember there's no such thing as a chemi…
I read this article a while ago that suggests love is produced by the releasing of various chemicals: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-chemistry-of-love-609354.
Seeing the title I thought this article was going to be about the "problem" of reductionism. But it delightfully doesn't fall into that trap and acknowledges that reductionism to the lowest useful components does not necessarily imply low complexity. Then goes on to express wonderment at the remaining complexity after reductionism. That's fine, I guess. Just as long as we all remember there's no such thing as a chemi…
Indeed, there are many such chemicals, and they don't make you fall in love, the complex soup combined with our neurology is what we call love.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say for the same reason programs need APIs and cars need steering wheels and emotions need words. It's often very helpful to be able to understand the stack all the way down, but there's power in abstraction, and the nature of things changes as they scale while their context remains constant such that by talking about all the component pieces, you might miss the greater whole. Or at least not be able to handle it…
>> Why does reductionism need an antidote? > I'd say for the same reason programs need APIs and cars need steering wheels and emotions need words. It's often very helpful to Your examples hardly involve antidotes . An antidote is for a poison, and we talk of metaphorical antidotes for things we perceive in a negative light. I think the person you replied to has a point. I've read a fair bit of philosophy for my PhD w…
That said, it really does seem like the term "reductionism" is overloaded. Perhaps it would have been more clear if the author had specifically referred to the concept of Scientism, which is related to a specific problem with excessive or mis-applied reductionism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism > The term scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge
I believe in that context, the original article and content make more sense. Personally, as a fan of David Deutsch's "Beginning of Infinity", I see absolutely no conflict between acknowledging both that scientism is harmful and that many systems can be reduced to elegant, simple definitions that are incredibly useful to understand.