Hi Ian, > Being definitive as in "a definition", or worse still "the > definition", is where I suggest beware getting too hung up (beyond a > very specific context or purpose)
Yes, SOM can cause people to believe that there is only one 'true' definition and be very closed minded about anything better - Ham's essentialism comes to mind. > The problem with reductionism is the same wariness I suggest above. > The more removed the smaller pieces of pattern are away from the > whole, the harder it is to realise their value - a castle built > entirely of static patterns has a lot of value firmly locked-up with a > great deal of latching in your way. > In Dennett's words reductionism is > OK, just avoid "greedy reductionism" - the kind of reductionism where > you believe that having found all the smallest indivisible parts, you > somehow "know" the whole. This is the same when searching for an 'elegant solution' to a problem in mathematics. The simple one is better than the complex one. > Reductionism is OK as part of the > explanatory process, but not as the answer, the explanation itself - > eg to a question of definition for example. Can you please rephrase this concluding sentence? I am having trouble understanding exactly what you mean. >> 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
