Maybe there are two sides to reductionism, the 'good' reduction of a problem that locates the true central solution, and the 'bad' reduction of the environment to fit the solution you prefer.
The latter makes the 'hammer solution' interpret everything as a nail. The former notices what's not a nail too... That our society is organized to hammer the earth and its resources at exponential rates, always adding %'s to the physical effect as its central organizing principle and is not watching for the difference between growing opportunity for one thing and growing conflicts for others, is a case in point. If you're not attentive to the presence of cognitive dissonances in the environment, well, then you won't see them erupting. Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:28 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Young but distant gallaxies > > John F. Kennison wrote: > > I have been trying to figure out what my position on reductionism > > might be, but I am running into problems. Does reductionism mean a > > belief that the best strategy is always to analyze complex things in > > terms of simpler components (with, I presume, a small number of > > irreducible parts)? Or is it a belief that everything in nature is > > nothing more than a sum of simple components? > > Well, I'll jump in. I can't say what "reductionism" actually means. > But I can say what I mean when I say it and how I interpret it when I > hear it. > > When I say it, I mean that reductionism is a _fetish_ for or zealous > commitment to reduction/analysis, beyond the practical. > > When I _hear_ the word, though, I tend to make a less extreme > inference. > Reductionism and reductionist seem to be used to refer to the very > analytic processes we revere and reward in all our most successful > humans. And although it's often slung as an epithet, I tend to think > it's a compliment, albeit a back-handed one. It seems to have become a > term we use for careful thinkers. You only get called "reductionist" > if > you keep nit-picking until everyone's mad at you. [grin] Up until that > point, reduction is always considered a pretty good method. When > people > are happy with it, they call it "parsimony" or "elegance" or some other > nice word. Then when you piss them off, they call it "reductionism". > > That's why I usually end up saying something like "a little bit > reductionist", which is a silly phrase if you put too much emphasis on > the denotation... kinda like being a little bit pregnant. Stick to > reduction for a little too long, and you're "a little bit > reductionist". > Commit your entire existence to it and you're a zealot. > > As usual, people tend to draw stark and false dichotomies. Nobody's > actually a reductionist and nobody's actually a holist. We just like > to > pidgeon-hole people and their statements because it makes our lives > easier. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > 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
