dmb explained "reductionism" to Krimel:
Imagine if I described the music of a string quartet in terms of vibrations per
second. Imagine that I report the frequencies with absolutely perfect precision
and emphatically insist that there could be no music without those vibrations.
All of that would be undeniably true. But if you objected because all this is
irrelevant to music AS music, you'd be right. If you objected because I'd
reduced music to a quantification of the physical facts, you'd be right. And
that's what I'm saying about biological explanations of culture and language. I
don't deny the biological facts any more than you'd deny the fact that strings
vibrate. ...My dictionary doesn't have a picture of you along with this entry,
but it could.... REDUCTIONISM |riˈdək sh əˌnizəm|noun often derogatorythe
practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental,
social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to
represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to
provide a sufficient explanation.
Krimel replied:
My dictionary actually has a picture of you alongside an entry reading:
reductionism |riˈdək sh əˌnizəm|noun a term Dave uses when he wants a plausible
sounding excuse for dismissing someone's argument in the absence of actually
having a valid counter argument. ..The way you toss out this term is like a
chemist dismissing all of physics because it attempts to break chemical
processes into more fundamental inorganic relationships. Or a biologist
dismissing chemistry because it breaks life down into simpler more fundamental
phenomena...
dmb says:
No, Krimel. The explanation of reductionism is a valid counter argument. Like I
JUST said, I don't deny the biological mechanisms underlying language and
culture any more than I would deny that vibrating strings are essentially to
musical performance. I'm simply saying that it is reductionistic to explain the
latter in terms of the former. Many moons ago the analogy involved an
explanation of a road trip a road trip in terms of gasoline consumption. I
mean, it really seems that you don't understand what the problem is. Every time
I point this out you reply with a re-assertion of more reductionism.
Okay, at this point I'm not asking you to defend your position or any
particular scientific finding. I just want to know that you actually comprehend
the meaning of the term "reductionism". I sincerely felt that you NEEDED to see
the definition from a neutral third party. I mean, it's hard to believe that
you can't grasp such a concept and yet you have absolutely nothing to say to
the charge. Every time you treat the issue as if it were just some sort of
trick to avoid the "real" issue. But as I see it, your reductionism is thee
central flaw in your whole perspective. It is apparently a part of your core
beliefs and it colors just about everything you say. It has a big effect on who
you take as your intellectual heroes. Wilson, for example, has also been
charged with reductionism. Dawkins fits your style too. Nobody criticized these
guys for getting the facts wrong and nobody is suggesting that their work be
dismissed as irrelevant. That's just not the problem with reductionism.
Can you convince me that you even understand this charge? Obviously, that's the
only way you're ever going to come up with a reply to the charge that makes any
sense. You realize at least that much, don't you? C'mon, be serious. Be
sincere. Be philosophical. You can do it. I think.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
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/md/archives.html
