rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/03/84)
> A lot of writers in this newsgroup have expressed their belief in various > forms of reductionism -- that is, explaining one thing in terms of another. > Examples: explaining human behavior in terms of chemical makeup of the > brain, or in terms of genetics (sociobiology) and/or environment (behav- > iorism). When the larger thing being described (the mind/brain) is composed of the smaller (chemicals), it is appropriate to delve to the maximum level of depth to find what is "really" going on. > I have no objection to this habit per se (although I think these > theories are often a thin cover for ideology -- especially sociobiology). > But I do object when words like "only", "just", and "merely" are thrown > around too easily. The words "only", "just", and "merely" are appropriate when compared to other grander (and less tenable) notions that proclaim the existence of something "more". > The mistake of supposing that determinism undermines free will > is due to the larger mistake of assuming that to explain things by a > "reduction" (analysis in terms of something else) is to explain them away. > It is here that the words "only", etc. are slipped in without justification. See above. > Human society is "only" a vehicle for the reproduction of genes; a person's > behavior is "just" a response to stimuli; a diamond is "merely" carbon. > Drop the words of disparagement and you may well have true statements. > Leave them in, and you have cynicism masquerading as scientific realism. Again, the words are appropriate in comparison to another notion that assumes something more. As for the three examples, in no particular order, human society is a human constructed entity that is what humans make it to be, a diamond is a rather special and unique arrangement of carbon, and a person's behavior is in fact, more than just a response to stimuli, because it has wider reaching results. Its causes, however, are still JUST responses to stimuli, which manifest themselves through chemical action. The whole is often more than the sum of its parts. But this does not change the nature of the parts that make it up. -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jim@ism780b.UUCP (10/18/84)
>> A lot of writers in this newsgroup have expressed their belief in various >> forms of reductionism -- that is, explaining one thing in terms of another. >> Examples: explaining human behavior in terms of chemical makeup of the >> brain, or in terms of genetics (sociobiology) and/or environment (behav- >> iorism). > >When the larger thing being described (the mind/brain) is composed of the >smaller (chemicals), it is appropriate to delve to the maximum level of >depth to find what is "really" going on. Actually, reductionism is the explaining of a thing *solely* in terms of it components. This ignores the holistic aspects that are not evident when only examining the components, so that one finds out "what is really going on" with the components, but not with the thing composed. There really are good reasons to talk about Monet or Goethe without resort to quantum mechanics or behaviorism. >> I have no objection to this habit per se (although I think these >> theories are often a thin cover for ideology -- especially sociobiology). >> But I do object when words like "only", "just", and "merely" are thrown >> around too easily. > >The words "only", "just", and "merely" are appropriate when compared to >other grander (and less tenable) notions that proclaim the existence of >something "more". In other words, you think "merely" is appropriate when you *presume* that there is merely but no more. "more" is grand, tenuous, and proclaims, while "merely" is merely appropriate, eh? How about merely applying a little intellectual honesty? >> The mistake of supposing that determinism undermines free will >> is due to the larger mistake of assuming that to explain things by a >> "reduction" (analysis in terms of something else) is to explain them away. >> It is here that the words "only", etc. are slipped in without justification. > >See above. Yes, do. >> Human society is "only" a vehicle for the reproduction of genes; a person's >> behavior is "just" a response to stimuli; a diamond is "merely" carbon. >> Drop the words of disparagement and you may well have true statements. >> Leave them in, and you have cynicism masquerading as scientific realism. > >Again, the words are appropriate in comparison to another notion that assumes >something more. As for the three examples, in no particular order, human >society is a human constructed entity that is what humans make it to be, >a diamond is a rather special and unique arrangement of carbon, and a person's >behavior is in fact, more than just a response to stimuli, because it has >wider reaching results. Its causes, however, are still JUST responses to >stimuli, which manifest themselves through chemical action. Behavior is more than just response to stimuli, but its causes are not? This sounds rather confused to me. The problem is that "just" is a very loaded word. Just which stimuli? Very important stimuli in the process are the toplogical orientations in the brain which are traces of massive amounts of previous stimuli, and are beyond the examination of behaviorists, but they tend to overlook that fact because of their "just" and "merely" orientation. These are very limiting words; they keep people from examining options. This truncates their natural faculties, and makes them ignorant and effectively stupid. >The whole is often more than the sum of its parts. But this does not >change the nature of the parts that make it up. You are speaking to a straw man. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)