dmb said to Krimel: ...Your replies only demonstrate that you don't understand what reductionism is or why it's a problem. In fact, you cite reductionists in your uncomprehending answers. (Wilson and Dawkins) All you do is repeat the assertions being challenged without actually address the challenge. ...The worst thing is, you're constantly taking my complaints about reducing experience to physiological processes as if they were a denial that such processes exist or as a suggestion that the biological sciences are worthless. That's not even close to what I'm saying. ...But let us start with the basics. You tell me what you think reductionism is and why it would be considered a problem. I mean that generally. Set aside my complaints and the MOQ and just focus on reductionism itself. What is it, Krimel?
Krimel replied:...reduction just means breaking big problems down into smaller problems to see how the answers to the smaller problems improve our understanding of bigger ones. dmb says:If that were true nobody would be opposed to it. If that described reductionism, I'd be opposed to algebra. Reductionism isn't just about simplifying complex problems, it is the attempt to explain complex phenomenon by way of the simpler phenomenon from which the more complex phenomenon emerged. Emergence and reductionism are opposed ideas. You might want to look into the idea of emergence. That's what the MOQ's levels are all about. Other thinkers assert this without benefit of the MOQ but the basic idea is the same. Krimel said:It can also mean searching for the necessary causes of things. dmb says:I don't see how that's even close. Krimel said:It can also happen when one set of ideas subsumes another. As when Newtonian theory subsumed Keppler and Galileo and then Relativity Theory subsumed Newtonian physics or when the MoQ subsumes SOM. dmb says:That would be called epistemological reductionism and is relevant to the history and development of science. This meaning of the term is not relevant to my complaints, however. Krimel said:Language is reduction of ideas to sound. In this sense reduction is a bit like encoding. We can remove lots and lots of the original, thickness of experience without significant loss of meaning. dmb says:That is definitely your weirdest answer. It would be reductionistic to reduce spoken language to sound, but I've never heard of such a thing. Language can be encoded all sorts of ways, some of which don't involve sound at all. It looks to me like you are conflating the pragmatic idea that there is always a discrepancy between concepts and reality with a complaint about reductionism. But the pragmatists do not see this as the result of a philosophical error. It's just about the nature of conceptual reality and immediately experienced reality. This is not a methodological stance, as reductionism is. Nice try. Krimel said:I don't see a problem with any of this and if you do, you have never said what it is. You just do a lot of name calling and labeling. dmb says:I know you don't see a problem. That's why your responses have been so irrelevant. The funny thing is, I tell you what the problem is just about every time, including the post you're responding to. It's right at the top of this post. My complaint is about your "reducing experience to physiological processes". What else would I call that? What else would I label that? Calling you a reductionist is not "name calling". That term has had meaning in genuine philosophical debates for ages and there's nothing unfair about using it. Now, if I were to call you a reductionist dick head or a reductionist testicle face, that would be name calling. Calling you square, obviously, is an allusion to all the comments in ZAMM about squares and so I find that to be a legitimate term here too. These things convey meaning, not just attitude. Krimel said: ...I showe with many, many quotes in the post I quoted here that you are misusing and abusing James shamelessly. Your response then and now was to run and hide and change the subject. dmb says:Well, I don't know what to tell you there. The people who graded my papers on James would definitely disagree with you on this. It's pretty obvious to me that Pirsig would disagree with you there too. As I see it, you're reading James as if he were a behaviorist, a reductionist like your self. But I'm also not interested in going down that road again, where we debate the meaning of James's quotes, because I'm not disputing James's psychology. I'm not even talking about James's psychology. I'm just trying to get you to see what reductionism is and why it would be a problem, which you don't. On top of all that, you're using James the psychologist to dispute James the philosopher, as if these two were incompatible or mutually exclusive. His psychology and his radical empiricism fit quite nicely together, unless they're put in the hands of a reductionist or a thoroughly unphilosophical psychologist or a thoroughly unpsychological philosopher. I mean, James said some amazing and fascinating things about the body and its role in psychology but you more or less reduce psychology to biology or reduce empiricism to physiology. In short, its just way too complicated at this point. I suspect that's why you'd like to go there. You feel safer there and it serves as a smoke screen. As if we're not talking about the MOQ and it's use of radical empiricism. Geez, what a weasel. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
