|
Howard and list:
I believe "this tribe" has no adjusted opinion
about how to value reductionism - even about what to call by this name. Maybe it
would be helpful to think about it.
Reductionism is defined in various ways in the
scientific lit, some philosophers make it quite convoluted (for me).
I kept pressing on several lists that I don't
use the 'R'-word pejoratively, it is the way how our (human) brain CAN work: by
REDUCING the incomprehendible totality into MODELS of observable, comprehendible
volume, by topical, functional, connotational content-cuts.
I have objections only if such model-based
thinking is substituted for the 'total' and when it is disregarding the
"beyond-boundary" (= rest of the world) connections/effects.
We would be nowhere without this capability of
our mind, it is the foundation of our mental evolution, the basis for the
survival of 'homo'.
In this respect our sciences (including physics)
are reductionistic, topically determined. I think math is not and this is why I
consider it a 'world by its own'. It can enter the theater of reductionism,
if its results (formulae) are applied to
calculations for models in the various sciences (including physics) -
(=Applied Mathematics).
An irate friend from Down Under said on another
list: "if you don't like one's theory, you just cry "It is reductionistic"
- then I explained that I live by the results of reductionistic sciences and
technology, I worked in such domain for ½ century - quite successful, I was
raised in such thinking and got my doctorates in reductionistic sciences. I do
draw the line when it comes to generalization and evaluation of the basics: THAT
should transcend the model-boundaries drawn (selected) by reductionistic
ordering of stuff. Our collecting information about the world is only possible
in reductionistic ways - yet recently we got to the level where we can start
applying discrimination between stricktly model-thinking (conventional science,
topically etc. reduced views) and the model-in-totality (1st
step to a more wholistic understanding) ways. This would still be
a far cry from wholistic understanding.
Most of the (as I like to call them) profanum
vulgus (=scientific community) does not want to widen the model-limits because
in such way thinking and results would become vague. Well, that is the price of
innovation: you cannot come up with perfect formulations in the beginning. Most
respected science-potetntates have published books, responsibility to earlier
students by their conventional science-lecturing, tenure and award bonds,
all in the best heritage of reductionistic science, irrespective of (maybe) some
closet-wholism in their brilliant minds. 20-30
years ago it was even worse and RR really had a hard time to raise his word for
the new. No wonder he got irritated.
I just smile and say to myself: sooner or later
you all will know better, one does not beat up a child for its ignorance. But I
can afford to be irresponsible and lenient: I am not attached
to academia, have not books or students in
the old views, I don't write a book either and don't want even the smallest
Nobel prize, so if people disagree, I don't care. I listen to them and if I find
it reasable what they say, I absorb it into my ever changing position. I feel
the wholistic- (~RR-complexity-) thinking is still far from being adequately
expressed - I allow some 2-3 centuries to complete this view scientifically (not
in the reductionistic sense, of course). It requires new ways of math and logic
as well. (Cf: e.g. Jack's Qualit. Physics).
I appreciate HP's wisdom to consider Jack's
word-flowers what they really were. And I cannot agree more with the
refusal of 'labeling' upon some selected characteristics.
John M
|