On 5/7/05, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so? there's never anything that's completely new under the sun. (thus, > "redux" appears in lots of pen-l e-mails.) The author was arguing that > the rejection of reductionism is taking hold, which suggests that it > may some day be the orthodoxy. If so, that's new.
---------------------- Not, it isn't; reductionism in biology has been rejected for quite a while. See Alexander Rosenberg's "Instrumental Biology or The Disunity of Science" for the nitty gritty. -- "C'mon Mr. Krinkle, tell me why" [Primus]
