Math is formal grammar (i.e. logical syntax).Mathematics isn't just grammar, is it? :chin: — Agent Smith
Have you forgotten, Smith, that the only "model" (map) that "corresponds one-to-one with the physical world" (territory) is "the physical world" (territory) because map =/= territory?The math models seem to correspond one-to-one with the physical world.
Of course.Do you mean to imply math-based scientific descriptions (maps) are (necessarily) incomplete? — Agent Smith
I suppose we should first question – speculate on – whether or not there is a "whole picture". For instance, the mathematical concept of infinity (re: continuum hypothesis?) implies there cannot be a "whole". There's also the ancient concept of the apeiron – endlessness – that radically calls "the whole" into question too. All it seems we can know it everything we can know is encompassed by an unsurpassable – transfinite? – horizon. Is that "nonscientific" enough for ya, amigo? :smirk:Shouldn't we then do something nonscientific? You know, to get the whole picture?
The second meaning of reductionism is the assertion that all sciences should reduce to physics (just as Apollo did). The argument for this hinges mainly on the success of physics up to this point. At least methodologically, scientists should continue to stick to what's been working for thousands of years. We should approach all topics available for scientific inquiry as if the goal is further reduction to physics.
Thoughts? — frank
Scientists haven't stuck to any methodological consideration for thousands of years. What works is dependent upon a community of scientists. And sometimes reductionism is a method which works to resolve problems, and sometimes it doesn't. It's this view of science being that Feyerabend targets when he says "anything goes" -- if science is an immutable, transcendental method of knowledge generation, and the method to understanding said method is to be gleaned by understanding what scientists actually do, and we look to the historical evidence of science the only theory one can propose that unites all historical scientific activity is to say "anything goes" -- whatever the scientists do in a current era, that's what the science is. Else, you'll find counter-examples of a proposed transcendental methodology. — Moliere
Even removing the historical scope wouldn't work to make way for the claim that scientists reduce to physics: chemistry nor biology concern themselves with reducing to physics, and yet both will utilize physics for their own purposes and both utilize mathematical expressions in their own domains — Moliere
We should approach all topics available for scientific inquiry as if the goal is further reduction to physics. — frank
I think, too, so hey, it's always good to stretch no matter the side we find ourselves on — Moliere
Anything goes" isn't exactly satisfying either, in the end, even if it guards against a certain kind of transcendentalism that is worse than not having a theory. — Moliere
. All you need do is point out the theory of evolution, which is clearly a novel scientific theory which didn't reduce life to physics — Moliere
Could you explain what's meant by "transcendentalism"? — frank
So let me ask: do you think biology can't be reduced (in the Nagelian sense) to physics? Or are you just saying it hasn't been as of yet? — frank
That's the move I think I'd guard against. I think it better to let history trump our ratio-centric re-statements of what we believe might be going on, in accord with a certain rationality we choose (because how else would you judge it rationally than be first choosing your rationality?) — Moliere
I was thinking how given that Darwin's proposal, in his own time, did not reduce to physics, yet it was science, and we continue to believe it and count it as science (though the story gets more complicated along the way), then that shows how science does not always reduce to physics. — Moliere
But, more straightforward for what I believe: I don't really believe it could be reduced, though I'm not firm on that notion. But that's where I stand. — Moliere
If your point is that Darwin didn't start with Newtonian laws and work his way up to evolution, I don't think that's what reductionists are suggesting scientists should do. Are they? — frank
But as a theory, I think evolution is amenable to reduction to physics. Darwin just didn't live long enough to read Schrodinger's book on it. I don't think he would have objected.
...
Any reasons why? — frank
Tell that Chat bot poetry composer that "how" and "know" do not rhyme. Neither do "stars" and "ours" for that matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
The thing I'd bring up is that "species" doesn't have a physics analogue. — Moliere
. We cannot understand life without beginning with things that are alive. We must work at it from both ends. The problem with reductionism is that it reduces things to something other than they are. — Fooloso4
I suppose, given the diversity of all the sciences, I still feel skeptical about a reduction to physics. — Moliere
There's no need to "reject" Reductionism as the method for scientific analysis (dissection) of Nature into its elements. There's still some de-construction work to do. But as your quote implied, you can't construct a real material universe from squishy superposed (not yet real) Quantum non-particles. Nevertheless, according to some physicists, the world now appears to be organized from fundamental "bits" of information (Wheeler's "it from bit").Pross claims that the rejection of reductionism is a mistake. That's why I'm wrasseling. I think he's wrong, but I'm reevaluating my position. — T Clark
What's your assessment of the book? — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.