One crucial non-reductionist (or pluralist) point — Pierre-Normand

Finally...

Is this reductionist:

When Edelman says that a person cannot be reduced to molecu-
lar interactions, is he saying anything different (except in degree)
than a botanist or a meteorologist who says that a rose or a thun-
derstorm cannot be reduced to molecular interactions? It may or
may not be silly to pursue reductionist programs of research on
complicated systems that are strongly conditioned by history, like
brains or roses or thunderstorms. What is never silly is the per-
spective, provided by reductionism, that apart from historical ac-
cidents these things ultimately are the way they are because of the
fundamental principles of physics.

So reductionism = abstraction? Have we changed the subject just to avoid you answering my question about a failure to be able to compute protein folding even from a complete knowledge of the local bonds in play? — apokrisis

Ornithologists don't expect to be able to derive everything from chemical bonds either. What's your point?

Surely you accept that as proof that "something" goes missing once one tries to reduce the rate-dependent dynamics of the real physical world to a rate-independent informational description? — apokrisis

Isn't the very idea of abstraction leaving things out?

Biological function only can be explained with reference to the high level functional organization typical of specific forms of life. If you abstract away from the context that gives significance to physiological processes, then you are doing physics and chemistry all right, but you have given up providing a biological explanation. You have just narrowed the focus to questions of material constitution, which are just one sort of question one can ask about a biological system. — Pierre-Normand

I will let Steven Weinberg answer this one:

When Edelman says that a person cannot be reduced to molecu-
lar interactions, is he saying anything different (except in degree)
than a botanist or a meteorologist who says that a rose or a thun-
derstorm cannot be reduced to molecular interactions? It may or
may not be silly to pursue reductionist programs of research on
complicated systems that are strongly conditioned by history, like
brains or roses or thunderstorms. What is never silly is the per-
spective, provided by reductionism, that apart from historical ac-
cidents these things ultimately are the way they are because of the
fundamental principles of physics.

All you had to do was quote a comment of mine.

DNA replication is one thing, genetic inheritance is another. — Pierre-Normand

Molecules in motion is one thing. Pressure, temperature and volume is another.

Or is it OK to be hand-wavingly approximate about even these "simplest" computations that nature appears to carry out in holistic fashion. It doesn't harm your case to admit that the sum of the parts is not literally just "a sum" when it comes to chemical and physical systems? — apokrisis

Have I said anything to suggest otherwise?

if protein folding via free energy minimisation counts as an NP complete problem? — apokrisis

Modelling physical phenomena using mathematics? How novel!

For your benefit, I'll point out the distinction between a methodology and the misconception that higher level explanations cannot be fundamental. — tom

In the example that you gave, they were fundamental only because they were studies of abstractions, of idealized objects.

One of the things that tends to happen is an object of study inspires an abstraction. Then the abstraction becomes a field of study in its own right. It is in this context that they become fundamental,

Geometry is an abstraction inspired by solid objects in space. It is fundamental. But being an abstraction it does not concern itself with questions like why metallic spheres don't collapse into each other when they are pressed against each other. That answer is provided by quantum mechanics.

The existence of those nuclear bonds merely are enabling conditions for those molecules being able to carry stable functional structures from one (or two) living progenitor(s) to its(their) progeny (i.e. whole living organisms). — Pierre-Normand

Surely you know that DNA replication is something that has been explained at the level of individual molecules. What does "enable" mean in the context of molecules obeying the laws of physics?

The existence of those nuclear bonds merely are enabling conditions for those molecules being able to carry stable functional structures from one (or two) living progenitor(s) to its(their) progeny (i.e. whole living organisms). — Pierre-Normand

They are not nuclear bonds. You don't need to go further than chemical bonds (valency, van der Waals, ionic, etc

A reductionist would have to explain that in terms of the Schrödinger equation. — tom

Actually it has been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond

Given any particular gene, it can be sequenced. The sequence can be encoded in ASCII or any other format — tom

So what is being encoded is the sequence of molecules cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A), and thymine. We are in agreement here. They are molecules. Would it be reductionist to say that why they and related molecules behave the way they do is because of chemistry and physics?

In that case, reductionism is simply a mistake and obviously so. — tom

Reductionism has been an extremely successful methodology, — tom

Could you provide a synthesis for our benefit?

but even a reductionist must be puzzled that there are so many branches of science. — tom

There is a chapter in a book of Steven Weinberg entitled "Two Cheers for Reductionism". Would he count as a reductionist?

Strictly speaking the the instances of replicators that occur in the Earth's biosphere are genes - portions of DNA that have specific information encoded in them. — tom

So DNA are molecules. Genes are portions of DNA. Genes are replicators. Is there anything here you disagree with?

In which I did not mention the Turing Machine, which is abstract, but rather the Universal Computer, which is real — tom

The former is is widely known in the literature. Can you give me references for the latter?

Strictly speaking the the instances of replicators that occur in the Earth's biosphere are genes - portions of DNA that have specific information encoded in them. — tom

Genes or DNA, would it be reductionist to say that they behave the way they do because of chemistry and physics?

Well look, that is the kind of reductionism that gets into books and this forum. If you were thinking of something else, then give us a good clear example of it. — Bitter Crank

I am coming round to the view that anti-reductionists don't like scientific details or even bother with them.

You think "replicators", "variation", and "selection" are not abstract? — tom

Abstraction is a tool that can be applied to many areas of inquiry. Be that as it may, the "replicators" are still DNA and RNA if you are studying biological evolution. And they are molecules.

You are similarly wrong about Information Theory. — tom

Like mathematics, it is a study of abstractions, in this case abstractions related to information. It is not one of the natural sciences.

Computers are real things, and the theory of computation has been a branch of physics since 1984. — tom

In theoretical computer science and mathematics, the theory of computation is the branch that — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation

Branch of physics?

Can you improve on the Carnot Cycle? — tom

Each step of the cycle depends on the gas laws that as I have mentioned, are explained by atomic theory and the kinetic theory of gasses.

But can you construct a perpetual motion machine of the second kind? — tom

Statistical mechanics gives an explanation for the second law by postulating that a material is composed of atoms and molecules which are in constant motion. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Statistical_mechanics

Whooaaa...hold on a minute here. We do agree that the replicators are DNA (and RNA for some lifeforms) right?

Computation - the fundamental object of study being the universal computer.
Information Theory - The study of counterfactuals (I'm being deliberately tendentious) — tom

In these cases, the objects of study are abstract and not coincidentally, they are not considered branches of the natural sciences.

Thermodynamics - The theory of steam engines (") — tom

If I say "the relationship between the energy, pressure volume and temperature of a gas in a container can be completely explained by atomic theory and the kinetic theory of gasses" , would I be a reductionist?

NeoDarwinism - the fundamental objects of study are replicators subject to variation and selection. — tom

If I say "the replicators are the way they are because of chemistry and physics" would I be a reductionist?

Before there were security and surveillance cameras, the best alternative was to make people believe in an all-seeing God.

If you were thinking of something else, then give us a good clear example of it. — Bitter Crank

I was hoping to provoke "anti-reductionists" to comment here.

Do you think Islam is facist? — Wayfarer

I am not sure fascist is the word to use. But there is a kind of brutality in the traditions of the Abrahamic religions.

I have read William Lane Craig rationalizing what was done to the Biblical Amalekites. Today we have the Islamic State actually doing more or less the same thing. Then, Midianite virgins, today, Yazidi.

So theoretically at least, Islam is no more "fascist" than Christianity or Judaism. It's just that Christians and Jews have stopped doing that sort of thing.

i am saying that civil rights and freedoms depend on acceptance of a framework of laws and conventions which I don't think are compatible with the Islamic conception of civic law, which is essentially theocratic in nature. — Wayfarer

No they don't. Fascist and communists openly organize in liberal democracies. The existing laws and civics are protection enough.

What does reductionism have to do with the validity of DNA testing? — csalisbury

It has to do with DNA testing trumping over all other ways of determining biological maternity - examples given in original post.

People don't like reductionism — Bitter Crank

I was thinking more of the sort that gets into books and articles (and this forum).

Which 'postmodernists' do you think wouldn't accept the result of a DNA test? — csalisbury

Then you have misunderstood the point. Would they concede that it trumps all other tests/determiners of biological maternity - I gave examples - that is the real question.

but you need to give us a bit more to go on. — Bitter Crank

What do you mean by 'reductionism'? — csalisbury

That's exactly what I am asking. When whoever it is criticises scientists for being reductionists, what do they mean? I gave a concrete example derivative of one given by Steven Weinberg, asking whether that is what critics mean.

The Essays of Montaigne.

You keep asking rhetorical questions as if they were somehow responses to what I write. — mcdoodle

There's a name for that sort of thing.

Food for thought. How do Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Jews treat co-religionists who leave their religion?

It seems as if people still remember mild culture wars of the 90's, when Quine was among those who opposed Derrida's honorary philosophy degree. — mcdoodle

You want to read accounts where the balance of power is reversed. Bouveresse has written accounts of what it was like to be an analytic philosopher in France.