Evgeniy, I may be the one agreeing with your sentence 1Z did not hear so
far. Maybe he is right. Let me try to explain why I am congruent with your
suggestion:
*Reductionism *(as I identify it, - not congruent with the classical
definitions - is the process in which the ongoing conventional sciences
consider "ALL" - i.e. the wholeness, the totality, - as the compendium of
our yesterday's knowledge: the content of our so far accepted epistemic
enrichment in the sciences (and the world in general). This is how
conventional sciences draw conclusions further reaching than our present
knowledge (in most cases not knowing about "the rest of the world" not yet
provided by our epistemic enrichment). Think of the Flat Earth, of the
'veins' circulating air, the uncuttable 'atoms', the DNA-genetics, etc.
etc., examples that changed the prior (scientific) knowledge by new
leanings. You may think of neurology as well, explaining all mental effects
upon the brain's so far learned characteristics as measured by the
instruments of 2010 - which is more than how it was 25 years ago. It is
still reductionist.

Engineering has to solve practical tasks in quantitative solutions and
cannot resort to include 'maybe'-s for possible extensions of our scientific
knowledge. So it takes the reductionist inventory and constructs brilliant
contraptions upon 'yesterday's (reductionistic) knowledge that are
*ALMOST*good. Almost? well, some airplanes fall off the skyies, some
diseases
strike, some wars break out, etc. etc., in spite of our incrredible
technology we acieved by the results of engineering. The 'still?' unknown
"rest of the world" has its influence in the overall complexity of the world
upon those partially solved problems as well, and of course, nobody can
include unknowable factors into any consideraton. We use what we know =
reduced.

*Brent* had a short remark recently to the H2O discussion: "2H2O = 2H2 + O2
- no problem".
He stopped short at the reductionist formula and the conventional physical
views of water, not extending the complexity of such situations into the
'potentials that are'. - formation of halos of diffusely disappearing
hydration and similar hydrated/not hydrated (hydrophil/hydrophob) situations
as result of the surrounding chemical(?) environment (unlimited???)  - all
not expressed in the conventional chemical formulae - or their physical
calculations (so far).

It is hard to transfer from the 'conventional' to the 'unlimited' because we
have no knowledge about the 'rest of the world'. I claim my (scientific)
agnosticism and say "I dunno". We use the 'reductionist' *MODELs* of the so
far known in our calculations and work in equations (maybe not true ones).
The 'engineering' style.
Respectfully

John M


On 9/19/10, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19 Sep, 07:30, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:
>
> > Well, I thought that reductionism could help an engineer.
>
> I don't think anyone said that
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to