Re: Reductionism denial


"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0CoHj.29123$w51.1605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
J.A. Legris wrote:

Reductionism is just a mode of talking about nature, and so is
emergentism. The things humans say about the world are strictly for
our own use - the subject is not to be confused with the object.

That seems more like the first meaning of reductionism - on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Of course you make no distinction between token and type ontological
reductionism.

"Type ontological reduction of biological things to chemical things is often
rejected." (Wiki)



The discussion here more about the second meaning, which
is more of a claim about the object of the discussion.

That there *are* no physical laws about the sun, thermodynamics,
biology, or things like that: physical laws are *all* concerned
with sub-microscopic interactions.

Incidentally, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
terminology is very confused.

As are you.



Emergence is a perfectly acceptable phenomenon: ants nests
really do behave in ways that are hard to predict based on
the properties of individual ants. I.e. "weak emergence"
is fine. It the interpretations of "strong emergence" that
invoke higher level causation impacting on the microscopic
which is what there isn't any scientific evidence to support.

Which is incorrect; the evidence is astounding. Try Alwyn Scotts works on
non-linear science:


Nonlinear Science: Emergence and Dynamics of Coherent Structures
(Oxford Texts in Applied and Engineering Mathematics, 8) by Alwyn Scott




The Nonlinear Universe: Chaos, Emergence, Life (The Frontiers
Collection) by Alwyn C. Scott



Try learning something instead of just spouting Bantum Book-level naivetees.



Holism is OK too, provided it is made clear that the *first*
meaning of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
which is what it is the inverse of - and *not* the
second meaning (which is the only one given on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism).

In this sense, there are no macroscopic objects, there are just
interacting systems of subatomic particles. All the accounting that is
required to balance energies, distribute masses, etc. etc. is in the
nature of the particles - there are no conceptual or analytical levels
and there is neither downward nor upward causation. Except as seen fit
by our tiny brains so we can jabber at each other about how we see the
world.

Well, I'm assuming the existence of the consensus reality known as

Consensus reality is like 100,000,000,000 flies not being wrong for eating
***!

the physical world in all this. That is a basic assumption, which
if you deny, you become unable to accept the entire scientific
enterprise

That is incorrect of course. One can easily question certain aspects of
theories and still be a sientist that accepts other aspects; that is in fact
how most scientists proceed and is also why there are revolutions in science
(as there are aspects that are completely overturned or replaced when new
observations *and thoughts* arise.

- which is fine, but leaves you permanently stuck in
kindergarden.

Just as idolatry of reductionism does.

--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.