Because of requests I have received on this blog, I will begin posting brief summaries of printed articles (usually in Skeptical Inquirer and Philosophy Now) that I author, shortly after they are published. When possible, I will also include a link to the articles for download. I would be interested, of course, in any discussion of such material that people care to engage in.
So, the first one in the series is a brief essay on reductionism vs. holism, which appeared in the September/October 2006 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. The article discusses the contribution to the debate by philosopher Robert Brandon, who – I think – actually has something original to say about this topic, not an easy feat considering that reductionism has been at the center of philosophy of science debates for several decades. You'll need to read the SI piece to get a feeling for what the arguments are, but essentially Brandon proposes a “third way,” which he terms “mechanism” to combine the practical advantages of reductionism (it has been very successful in science) with the metaphysical pluses of holism (it is by far a more sensible view of the complexity of the real world).
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
Based on your summary of Brandon's work, I wouldn't say he's 'solved' the reductionism/holism debate as much as pointed out (correctly, I think) that the debate itself is actually good for science! There would only be a problem to solve if scientists stopped trying to look at problems from multiple angles and multiple scales. The debate is as unsolved as ever, and may it rage on.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the big fuss is about. Both reductionism and holism can offer us important knowledge. If anything, reductionism appear to be somewhat the same to holism as newtonian physics is to relativity. Ueseful within its limits, when describing a narrower patch of the "whole picture".
ReplyDeleteGood Day, I've just recently stumbled upon your blog and am enjoying it quite thoroughly. I just checked your book "Denying Evolution" from my University library and find it both enlightening and downright funny at times. Unfortunately, I attend a rather ignorant university (Creighton) bent on the glorification of deities rather than reason. Your book is certainly a ray of light in that regard. I keep a blog of my own at www.roryhand.com and I'll be sure to post a review of your book as soon as I finish, which won't be long given that I can't put it down. Best, Rory Hand
ReplyDeleteThere are several good introductory books on philosophy and modern schools of thought. Pick up an issue of Philosophy Now in a bookstore (or go to www.philosophynow.org/) to get started, or check out the Routledge catalog on philosophy at www.routledge.com/philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can tell you that the vast majority of scientists does not give a flying fig for this debate, really. Whether that's good or not, that's another story.
ReplyDeleteWe talk a lot about this in the lab (well, we're at the "Center for the Study of Biological Complexity" after all). But a colleague of mine who's well versed in the "holism" side, for example, has become a bit disillusioned with all this. As Massimo states in the article, there's (almost) nothing useful that the holist approach can show. Sure, it sounds great and it is even demonstrated to be "proven" by the physicists/chemists like Ilya Prigogine. But in our everyday life at the bench (or the computer), what good is it? That's a question we're trying to address, since we're trying to develop a systems biology oriented curriculum there, and it's quite strange to imagine how to do such thing to, say, molecular biology, or cellular biology, let alone evolutionary subdisciplines like phylogenetic inference...
Again, most scientists just keep on working and couldn't care less, if they ever heard of this debate to begin with.
J
MP, as a research scientist and engineer myself, I can tell you that science (at least insofar as it is interpreted by engineers) assumes a holist world but models that world with reductionist techniques. We use different nomenclature, of course: "holism" == "nonlinear" and "reductionist" == "linear". The fundamental premise underlying linear models is that the principle of superposition holds, i.e. that one can deconstruct a problem into smaller, easily-analyzable parts, and then combine the answers into a coherent and meaningful whole. This principle does not hold in general, but often is quite accurate in tiny subsets of problems, in much the same way that a curve (e.g. a circle) can be approximated at a point on its circumference by a line tangent to it at that point. So from that standpoint, one might say that holism "is" reality, but reductionism proves to be useful in getting our minds around it.
ReplyDeleteThat is one of my favourite essays by Brandon. His two books are some of my favourite as well and I go back to them for wisdom over and over again.
ReplyDeleteThe link to your article seems to be broken...is there some other place where I can access your essay?
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Allen,
ReplyDeletejust drop me an email and I'll send you a pdf version.
I find it odd that holism is seen as an ontological approach that takes complexity into account more so than reductionism; in fact, I find the opposite to be true. The argument of reductionism as simplification rests on the premise that simplification is defined as the explanation of larger things with their component parts. This is, quite frankly, ridiculous, because thinking of entities as irreducible wholes is excessive rationalization; the complexity of wholes are ignored when one thinks of them as essential entities. It's the difference between rational and irrational logic and math. Thinking of entities as given wholes with no examination to the very minute measurements of their parts lends to rationality, which IS simplification. Holism is also obviously simplification because, ironically, of its own criticism of reductionism. Holist thinkers criticize reductionistic approaches through their analysis of larger entities being ultimately reducible to irreducible things, which can be promptly worked into logic or math. Given this critique, it becomes obvious that holism becomes its own critic; to assume absolute unity is to believe in identical, unchanging, things, which lends to simplification. From there, one sees that simplification arises from epistemological assumption, a "stopping point" for the reducibility of entities. An extreme reductionist view would be indefinite reducibility, meaning that no entities are defined because they are arrangements and particular forms of smaller components that are not eternally bonded to other parts. It is a chaotic analysis of reality. Holism, on the other hand when taken to the extreme, would provide the most unitary and simplistic analysis: pure being, irreducible and unchanging. Simplification is thus not the destruction of the whole, but the opposite--the assumption of the whole.
ReplyDelete