Hello, John,
do we have a concensus on reductionism? On another list and some years
back someone overpoured me with ½ dozen theoretical definitions from
diverse philosophers, in which I was not interested. To your remarks:
First: I never mentioned "physical reductionism".
I don't know about any connection of "ism"s to physical measures or
measurablity. Spiritualism comes to mind.
Reduction, however, brings to my spiritualism (just for the pun of it)
a reduction <G> meaning: to reduce a total view into some part of it,
substituting the part for the original (total?). The reduction occurs
by selecting aspects to consider, called: boundaries, *WITHIN* which
we observe and visualize. Topical is a broad selection.
A second step is *"model" formation*, we pick (consciously or by
occurrence) a _limited cut_ from a topic, call it a *name* and
consider it as a "total" for our observation. All of our sciences are
topically identified, - all are reductionistic. That's my stance. \
/(Except for (pure) math, which is a 'world of its own', with its
language and logic. As long as it is not "applied" to sciences, when
it runs into (contributes to) difficulties by reductionism. - the
equational formalism of models.)/
>"I would prefer to state it that way - "best available concept >of
nature." - "<
Available to us - at what level? The Flat Earth? It changed.
>We can take it as given that the way we understand nature >is through
models.<
Aren't we working on improving our understanding? Can you 'understand'
the wholistic interconnectedness, an unlimited impredicativity of a
natural system by clean-cut models? Isn't Rosenism a step forward from
the "model-view"?
Yes, models are useful, practical and usable. Conclusions have been
drawn in successful development for technology and the underlying
(reductionist?) science (formalism), in a very complex (complicated)
fashion.
Models and IMO reductionism: predicative, T-computable.
Wholism (RR-complexity): impredicative,T-non-computable.
Your take--------
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <*** <mailto:***>>
To: <*** <mailto:***>>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: models - branch fromf GM discussion
> John M.
> Your rewording is OK too. However, I think it is will be confusing to
> add the qualifier "in the reductionist sciences" because modeling in
> terms of relationships and their organization is also
> "non-reductionistic" in the strict sense of physical "reductionism",
> which is what most people think of when using the term. "Reductionism"
> that is, the "ism" does historically refer to reduction to physically
> measurable quantities. The Rosennean model, if used as a picture of some
> aspect of nature, does introduce non-reductionistic elements in this
> sense, and hence a kind of biological uncertainty which is not
> reducible. Yet in a broader sense, it is itself a reduction to
> relational concepts. So, as I've stressed before (and will again I'm
> sure), it is much more a matter of what we are reducing to, than
> reduction itself, which arguably all thinking requires.
>
> Also, a much more minor quibble with the rewording, and my original
> wording, is that the goal of science isn't so much to understand models
> or completeness, as I think about it, as to understand nature, so I
> suppose I would prefer to state it that way - "best available concept of
> nature." We can take it as given that the way we understand nature is
> through models.
> John K
>
>
> John M wrote:
>
> >Hello, John K. and Judith,
> >Thanks for John's concurring ideas in the post - except for one little
> >correction I want to point out: Instead of the concluding
> >
> >>"For the present, however, adding the relational model is
> >>such a major step toward a more complete view of nature that >for
present
> >>
> >>
> >working purposes, this addition gives us our best >available concept of
> >completeness."<
> >
> >Why not turn it around, like (a very scanty re-wording):
> >
> >"For the present, however, speaking of the relational model is
> >such a major step toward a more complete view of nature in the
reductionist
> >sciences that for present working purposes, this addition gives us
our best
> >and most complete available concept of a "model"."
> >
SNIP> >
> >I am all for the successfulness of reductionist science-technology, the
> >'mechanistic' models we formed brought us down from the tree and
out from
> >the cave. I exercised it for ½ century myself. THINKING is
different, with
> >(in) new vistas, for better (new) understanding. MR is a good
bridge in
> >between (I wish I knew what it is).
> >I formulated lately the relational aspects as network-extensions
> >http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/Influence.htm - changing only the
format
> >(wording) of views.
> >It all depends how much we restrict the boundaries in modeling.
> >(How much "realtion" fits in).
> >
> >I think we can talk about "Rosennean models" knowing and keeping in
mind,
> >how far we have to go to be away from the mechanistically cut
limited models
> >(this is what my "but close" referred to in my post to Jack -
thanks, Jack,
> >for you consenting reply to it).
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >John M
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John Kineman" <*** <mailto:***>>
> >To: <*** <mailto:***>>
> >Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:42 AM
> >Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"
> >>Hi John M.
> >>You raise a topic that I have and will come back to many times.
The idea
> >>of a "Rosennean model" -- is there such a thing?
> >>
> >>Here's how I look at it.
> >>
> >>RR's statement that there isn't a largest model means there can by no
> >>complete model that can capture all aspects of a complex system.
It does
> >>not say there can be no useful models. Mechanistic models are one
> >>example of both statements. I accept this argument fully, based on the
> >>explanation he provided in convincing detail and with considerable
> >>emphasis and repetition.
> >>
> >>I also belive there is a kind of model that is not mechanistic in its
> >>foundation, which describes certain aspects of systems that are
> >>different than what mechanistic models can describe. These look a lot
> >>like Rosen modeling relationships themselves, and they describe the
> >>natural relationship between functional specifications (models) and
> >>their realization in material systems. Such models can indeed tell us
> >>something important about nature, particularly biology, because they
> >>represent an aspect of nature that is excluded by mechanistic models.
> >>Their incompleteness, in part, is in excluding the mechanistic
model. We
> >>gain understanding of certain relational aspects, but need to go to
> >>mechanistic models for representing non-relational aspects. Hence
in my
> >>work, for examepe, it is necessary to consider both kinds of models,
> >>recognizing that neither is a complete descriptions, and the most
likely
> >>even the two kinds of models taken together will not provide a
complete
> >>description. For the present, however, adding the relational model is
> >>such a major step toward a more complete view of nature that for
present
> >>working purposes, this addition gives us our best available concept of
> >>completeness.
> >>
> >>John K.
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Jack Park" <*** <mailto:***>>
> >>>To: <*** <mailto:***>>
> >>>Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:51 AM
> >>>Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"
> >>>
> >>>>My response would be a simple question:
> >>>>
> >>>>What steps must I take to craft a Rosennean model using their
data and
> >>>>anything else I might need, such that I gain the ability to
study their
> >>>>results with a different model than the one(s) they presumably
applied
> >>>>to get those results?
> >>>>
> >>>>Jack
> SNIP the rest