= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RogerS comments on Removing Bias From the Definition of Reductionism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (48)
Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that you don't agree with my definition of reductionism (which was intended as a point of agreement, not a straw man at all)? I agree that an opinion about the likelihood that the standard model will continue to serve is a separate question.
Yes. Reductionism has nothing to do with how detailed our map is.
I find it hard to square that with the Sequence item referred to, but then you imply you also found it confused. So, what do you use the word to mean?
I have no objection to the definition given in the LW wiki.
That's using reductionism to mean materialism.