Günther, On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> OK, so in your symbol space reductionism is tied to "stupid" and > "simplistic" - it is hard to argue when the term has so bad connotations > in your mind. Certainly I can't argue in a few words without being > misunderstood. No, I only view some reductionist positions as "stupid" and "simplistic". Decarte's reductionist position regarding non-human animals certainly falls into these two categories, influences of the Catholic church at that time notwithstanding. I suppose reductionism is one frame of reference that some people must use in order to place their problem into a perspective that allows them to think about it in a way that is comfortable for them. I have not read "On the Origin of Objects"; I may browse it if I ever have some free time. I did read http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/reductionism.html, and I will say that when I am in a mood to contemplate cosmological issues, I prefer the works of Stephen Weinberg and George Smoot. Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well, actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them. ;-} Cheers, --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================ 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
