= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
simplicio comments on 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 (150)
This discusssion is about the term "reductionism" - which is obviously some kind of philosophy about "reducing" things - but the cited definitions differ on the details of exactly what the term means.
The first meaning just states the obvious, IMO. Also, other terms have that kind of nonsense covered. There is no need to overload the perfectly useful and good term "reductionism" with something that is only useful for the refutation of nonsense. It just causes the type of mix-up that you see in this thread.
I understand, I just don't get why you object to reductionism as exemplified by the second definition. It seems to me a fairly reasonable philosophical position.
I object to that terminology because it overloads a useful term which is used for something else without having a good excuse for doing so. Call the idea that invisible pixies push atoms around "irreducibility" - or something else - anything!
IMO, "Reductionism" and "Holism" should be reserved for the Hofstadter-favoured sense of those words - or you have a terminological mess:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l76/orestesmantra/MU.jpg
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.