Reductionism and Forum Conversations

[John Creighto]

At least as far back as the Greeks people have been trying to understand things by looking at lower and lower levels to find the first principles which determine all things. We break things into their components, and then into materials and then into compounds and then into atoms. This works well for physics and chemistry but as much as we believe that people are governed by the laws of Quantum mechanics we cannot understand higher level organisms by these first principles.

By restricting the scope of a topic, subject, discipline or field it is easier to ensure what we focus on is relevant but with such tunnel vision, we may overlook the relationships between our area of focus and other well-known and important ideas. (as a side note this relates to what John Taylor Gatto’s calls: “The Lesson of Confusion”. Where he says everything is taught in a disconnected way. Remember that the process of connecting ideas together helps us to remember them. The more we try to simplify things by breaking them down. The less interesting we will find the subject and the harder it will be for us to retain what is learned.)

Now with regards to a forum conversation, I understand that keeping the subject narrow helps to keep what is discussed as a coherent hole. However, if the focus is too narrow, the topic may become uninteresting and stifle relevant conversation.

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

 

[Ryan_m_b]

At least as far back as the Greeks people have been trying to understand things by looking at lower and lower levels to find the first principles which determine all things. We break things into their components, and then into materials and then into compounds and then into atoms. This works well for physics and chemistry but as much as we believe that people are governed by the laws of Quantum mechanics we cannot understand higher level organisms by these first principles.

Reductionism isn't as prevalent in science as is often made out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology

In many biological disciplines from microbiology to medicine to psychology and even ecology there are approaches that employ reductionism and holism.

 

[Maui]

Would any scientist openly admit that sometimes 2+2 equals 5 under certain, specific situations?

 

[wuliheron]

That sounds like fun. Let's all make up our own private languages while we're at it and spout endless gibberish. NOT! Communication requires compromise and if you aren't willing to compromise then just don't and see how far it gets you.

As for this website, it is one of the very few online that even demands people use standard dictionary definitions of words. If you don't like it, there are plenty more that don't.

 

[LudusRex]

Reductionism is a useful tool in science, but it is important to recognize its limitations. As the content mentions, it works well for understanding physical and chemical systems, but it may not be as effective when applied to higher level organisms or complex systems. This is because these systems involve emergent properties that cannot be fully explained by breaking them down into their individual components. Therefore, we must also consider the relationships and interactions between these components in order to fully understand these systems.

Similarly, in forum conversations, it is important to strike a balance between keeping the topic narrow enough to maintain coherence, but also broad enough to allow for relevant and interesting discussions. Too much reductionism in the conversation may limit the potential for new ideas and connections to be made, while too little may lead to a lack of focus and direction.

In science and in conversation, it is important to recognize the value of reductionism while also acknowledging its limitations. By incorporating different levels of analysis and considering the relationships between them, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world around us.