[net.philosophy] it's ONLY reductionism

esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (10/02/84)

[]

It's ONLY reductionism; or, How To Explain Without Explaining Away:

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).  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.

Having had a hard time fighting off this abuse of reductionism with respect
to free will, I've decided to go on the attack against the root of the 
problem.  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.
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.

				--The untiring iconoclast,
				Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's.  Thanks.

dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (10/03/84)

[]
Paul Torek has made an excellent point here.  Indeed, I think people
should consider a lot more carefully just what it is they are doing when
they are giving a reductionist explanation of something.
Indeed, the whole issue of what is an explanation deserves discussion.

Good examples come from physics.  Given a formula that, as far as we
can measure, accurately predicts the value of one observable, say Y, from 
certain others, say X1 ... Xn, what should we say?  Have we explained the
phenomenon?  Are X1 ... Xn the cause of Y?  Do we have nothing more than
a formula of pragmatic value?

Daryel Akerlind
...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker
"Your ignorance makes me ill and angry.  This savagery must cease."