I meant quite the opposite of discrediting reductionism. It has been the basis of progress in modern science. It doesn't preclude attempts at unification , given the information that has been acquired in the structure of matter down to the quantum level. That work continues, as well as research in the other direction, especially in cosmology and modern field theories-- in which progress has also been made possible from evidence of the sort coming from what some might derisively call the reductionist point of view.
This is a large story, in which, as aa scholar in the philosophy of sciences, you need no instruction, I'm sure. All best, Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Günther Greindl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies Jack, ok, I phrased my question badly. To avoid any nitpicking ;-), I would like to know what you mean by this: "This doesn't mean strictly remaining with restraints belonging under the heading of that horrible word "reductionism". Cheers, Günther ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
