=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 8, no. 11 (17 February 2003) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2xl] Reductionism and 'nothing-buttery' =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 From: David A. Girling, dgirling@dircon.co.uk Today, while I was reading through a vast backlog of emails to EDline that I had foolishly allowed to accumulate, my attention was caught by the opening sentence of Victor Dewsberry's contribution to the 'Would like to' discussion: 'There is attractiveness in your reductionist approach'. I have been vaguely troubled by the word 'reductionist' for some time. Whenever it crops up in a Guardian or Times Literary Supplement book review, whether on a scientific, philosophical or psychological subject, the word seems to be applied to a particular view or approach in a pejorative way. And yet the particular view or approach which the reviewer appears to be criticising or condemning by applying this adjective to it seems to me, more often than not, eminently rational or sensible. Recourse to the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives: 'reductionism . . . 1 the tendency to or principle of analysing complex things into simple constituents. 2 often derog. the doctrine that a system can be fully understood in terms of its isolated parts, or an idea in terms of simple concepts (cf. HOLISM 1)'. (When I look 'holism' up, I get, with typical lexicographical circularity, the following definition: 'the theory that certain wholes are to be regarded as greater than the sum of their parts (cf. REDUCTIONISM 2)'.) But at least the qualifying 'often derog.' confirms what I had felt about the manner in which 'reductionist' was most often used in journal and newspaper articles. When I sought further elucidation in other reference books in my library, for example, The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, I was defeated by the opacity of the explanations and the complexity of the cross references. I am left feeling puzzled and defensive. How else can one understand anything if one does not first break it down into its basic elements to see how they all connect up and ultimately function together. Or do the big boys know something I don't? Can anyone throw some light on this - in simple terms, please? --------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au You are quite right, but I think you are missing something significant. The definition of reductionism that you quoted suggests to me that it sees the whole _only_ in terms of its parts -- whereas your comment above acknowledges the need to join the bits up when you understand them individually. If you like, think of reductionism as analysis without the subsequent synthesis. ----------------------- Date: Thurs, 6 Feb 2003 From: Alison Black, alison@bailihe.freeserve.co.uk David A. Girling wrote: > How else can one understand anything if one does not first > break it down into its basic elements to see how they all > connect up and ultimately function together. and Michael Lewis replied: > You are quite right, but I think you are missing something > significant. The definition of reductionism that you quoted > suggests to me that it sees the whole _only_ in terms of its > parts -- whereas your comment above acknowledges the need to > join the bits up when you understand them individually. If you > like, think of reductionism as analysis without the subsequent > synthesis. Yes, this is one way of looking at it. Referring back to David's original comment: > Whenever it crops up . . . the word seems to be applied to a > particular view or approach in a pejorative way. And yet the > particular view or approach which the reviewer appears to be > criticising or condemning by applying this adjective to it > seems to me, more often than not, eminently rational or > sensible In practice the reason why reductionism can seem rational, sensible and attractive to some but not to others is that it tends to "reduce" intangible to tangible elements (e.g. "Mind/spirit is only matter") and yields a relatively simple, elegant and apparently robust and no-nonsense - or alternatively limited and inadequate - model of reality. The term reductionism is so far as I remember used mainly by critics of reductionism, which is why the term is so often pejorative. An indication of both points of view is nicely conveyed in Joy Davidman Lewis's explanation of the philosophy of her youth: "Life is only an electrochemical reaction. Love, art, and altruism are only sex. The universe is only matter. Matter is only energy. I forget what I said energy is only" - quoted in C. S. Lewis's foreword to her _Smoke on the Mountain_ , Hodder and Stoughton, 1963. --------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 From: Peter Cousins, pcousins@tesco.net Professor Donald Mackay coined a term to express the basic problem about reductionism. He called it 'nothing-buttery' - as in: Music is nothing but a series of vibrations in the air'. And humankind are similarly 'nothing but' a species of animal. --------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 From: Simon Cauchi, simon.cauchi@paradise.net.nz Peter Cousins wrote: > And humankind are similarly 'nothing but' a species of animal. But that's true. No matter how many special or extraordinary qualities you might claim for humankind, its/their animalness (animality?) is not reduced or modified one whit. --------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 From: Esther Shchory, eshchory@nonstop.net.il I think the pejorative sense of reductionist is parallel to the use of simplistic. If you say someone's approach is simplified you suggest that they have succeeded in removing unnecessary complication while retaining the most important elements. However simplistic implies that you have ignored (intentionally?) some very important points. Often the implication is that the situation is too complex for a simplified approach. The description 'reductionist' seems to imply that your approach reduces the subject so far that some thing important is ignored. Whether you agree with this or not is purely personal IMHO. As in the question whether humans are 'nothing but animals': if discussing instincts this could be an interesting approach but if discussing religion it is hardly helpful. --------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 From: Peter Cousins, pcousins@tesco.net Simon Cauchi responds to the reductionist statement that 'humankind are nothing but a species of animal' by pointing out that 'no matter how many special or extraordinary qualities you might claim for humankind, its/their animalness (animality?) is not [thereby] reduced or modified one whit'. I would distinguish: true - the statement does not modify their animalness; but false in that it certainly modifies their (alleged) humanness. The 'thought processes' underlying this putatively rational discussion are 'nothing but' electrical phenomena within the central nervous systems of the participants. Who are themselves 'nothing but' conglomerations of assorted atoms. Thorough-going reductionism saws off the branch of rationality upon which it calms to be sitting. --------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 From: Beck Laxton, becklaxton@yahoo.com Peter Cousins wrote: > Thorough-going reductionism saws off the branch of rationality > upon which it calms to be sitting. I agree. It also seems to be a rather dreary line of arguement. Pretty much everything's 'nothing but' atoms, after all. Perhaps the essence of reductionism, or perhaps the objection to it, is that it doesn't really get you anywhere? --------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 From: John Morris, johnjeff@meadowdance.org Peter Cousins wrote: > Thorough-going reductionism saws off the branch of rationality > upon which it calims to be sitting. and Beth Laxton responded: > I agree. It also seems to be a rather dreary line of arguement. Pretty much everything's 'nothing but' atoms, after all. Perhaps the essence of reductionism, or perhaps the objection to it, is that it doesn't really get you anywhere? Perhaps the essence of the problem people have with the processes behind reductionism is that it uses words to suggests that something is less than it really is. My wife tells me that I do this with "just." Me: "I'll just take the engine out of the crashed truck and put it in the one with the blown head gasket. Then we will have a perfectly functioning truck when we need it." Sue: "Sure, and you are planning on doing that between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. when you have nothing better to do?" Her point is that by adding the word "just," I'm suggesting that the task is easier than it is. Nothing-buttery does the same with "nothing but." While it is true that thought processes are nothing but electrical signals in the central nervous system, the "nothing but" may reduce the importance and value of those electrical signals. The central nervous system is incredibly complex; there is nothing "nothing but" about it. In a related note, the "nothing but" can also mask some important details and suggest that they are not there. Humans are not "nothing but another species of animal;" they are my species of animal. This closeness gives them more importance than the other species of animal to me. We may like to claim that we are objective and are not species-centric, but the fact of the matter is that most people feel more strongly about those that are close to them than those that are far away. This is so prevalent, in humans and in other animals, that I think it must be one of those genetic traits that helps ensure the survival of each species. Of course, going overboard or being short sighted with that sentiment (as we humans seem to be doing in relation to the environment) could lead to damage to the group we allegedly have foremost in our values. --------------------- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 From: Ian Kingston, i.kingston@ntlworld.com Beck Laxton wrote: > It also seems to be a rather dreary line of arguement. Pretty > much everything's 'nothing but' atoms, after all. Perhaps the > essence of reductionism, or perhaps the objection to it, is > that it doesn't really get you anywhere? I think that the real problem is that the whole premise of 'holism' vs. 'reductionism' is misconceived. We deal with everything at varying levels of abstraction, involving different degrees of detail. Extreme holism tries to avoid looking at any detail at all, whereas extreme reductionism sees nothing but detail, without any view of the overall picture. In practice, we choose the levels of reductionism and holism that we need. When my watch stops, I know that the battery needs replacing. I have to reduce the problem to that level of detail, because the extreme holistic view would say 'This watch is broken', and offer no solution (except, perhaps, buying another watch). Conversely, analysing the failure of the battery in terms of the physics and chemistry of batteries gives me no further insight into the problem of making my watch work again, and is thus overly reductionist. Holism and reductionism complement each other. They should not be seen as competing world views. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 8.11 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2002--2003, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2003 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2003 Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=