|
Tim had a remark on the subject _expression_ that
I was almost the sole culprit for this _expression_ to appear in the archives -
and maybe - I would comment on it.
Yes, indeed, I would.
Etymologically I am in a different ballpark of
understanding wordflowers from those rooted in the Indo-European languages. For
me it is an adjective, not an activity-marker. As a matter of fact it is like a
redundancy: "models" (unless 'natural models' or the ominous 'maximum models')
are products of reductionist ways, I only pointed to its original
type. So no need to read more into it.
I cannot assign a different meaning to
reductionism (the ways to 'reduce' the view of the total into a choice of
its select partial content) than choosing
boundaries around a selection for topical interest, function, observation,
subject.
In the pejorative sense it
points to a limited view, if it is used for drawing general conclusions omitting
further connotations that naturally occur beyond the boundaries.
Positively it is our practical
view of the world, selecting objects for our attention within the capabilities
of the mind: The only way we can think. Science, technology, and
all.
So the ubiquitous 'models' are reductionistic,
so chosen and limited. (Not some "way" they perform by).
So it is no 'shame' if all conventional sciences
(incl. biology) are deemed reductionistic, we only try to step ahead one step.
Mathematics (IMO) is not, it is a unique ideational world on its on (some say: a
language, but it is much more than that). Applied Math, however, within the
(lately strongly physicalized) sciences IS
reductionistic, since it works in equational fashion with the limited model
assigned (sum-) values, which were already in the time of Aristotle less
then the total. Heisenberg was a genius.
I wonder if all this is heretic in RR's words, I
feel it is OK in the sense I caught from his ideas.
John Mikes
|