Comments on: The Failure of Reductionism http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:42:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Pavel Chichikov http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-10356 Pavel Chichikov Mon, 01 May 2006 01:11:43 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-10356 English still possesses grammatical gender, which is why "Man", meaning the species, is still correct. In other languages the distinction between grammatical and other kinds of gender is clearer. If *gostinnitza* [hotel] is feminine, that does not mean that only women can stay in hotels in Russia. English still possesses grammatical gender, which is why “Man”, meaning the species, is still correct.

In other languages the distinction between grammatical and other kinds of gender is clearer.

If *gostinnitza* [hotel] is feminine, that does not mean that only women can stay in hotels in Russia.

]]> By: ov http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-9454 ov Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:39:12 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-9454 <code> seeking absolute truths through perspective needs where you're coming from and going to and neither of these subjects are objective especially when there is more than one view a right or wrong but not both they conclude to fit only one and they attempt to exclude a spirit and reductionist alike misconstrue </code>
seeking absolute truths through perspective
needs where you're coming from and going to
and neither of these subjects are objective
especially when there is more than one view
a right or wrong but not both they conclude
to fit only one and they attempt to exclude
a spirit and reductionist alike misconstrue

]]> By: bubba http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8849 bubba Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:22:30 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8849 LOL, apparently a few of you have used linguistic/semantic/politically correct reductionism, upon a blog entry devoted to scientific reductionism. I don't see too many comments that relate to the author's post, but i suppose arguing about usage, and language references is fun for a few of you? How about we call ourselve Mogels or something, a new language will develop eventually--I doubt future authors will sit around arguing about the she/he ---mankind/humankind type of stuff. Better start using the energy to be happy, healthy, and learning some skills! LOL, apparently a few of you have used linguistic/semantic/politically correct reductionism, upon a blog entry devoted to scientific reductionism.

I don’t see too many comments that relate to the author’s post, but i suppose arguing about usage, and language references is fun for a few of you?

How about we call ourselve Mogels or something, a new language will develop eventually–I doubt future authors will sit around arguing about the she/he —mankind/humankind type of stuff. Better start using the energy to be happy, healthy, and learning some skills!

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8847 ChandraShakti Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:05:08 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8847 This discussion really belongs under Ben's article, so that's where I'm putting <a href="http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-social-trinity/#comment-8848">my response</a>. This discussion really belongs under Ben’s article, so that’s where I’m putting my response.

]]> By: Leon http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8844 Leon Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:10:41 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8844 Chandra, would it not be easier to simply accept that in the English language, homo sapiens is commonly referred to as 'man', or 'mankind'? I mean, that is not a false statement, is it? Aren't there better ways to achieve equal regard and equal rights for women and men? Man! You guys really bug me, with this 'politically correct' stuff! ;) Chandra, would it not be easier to simply accept that in the English language, homo sapiens is commonly referred to as ‘man’, or ‘mankind’? I mean, that is not a false statement, is it?

Aren’t there better ways to achieve equal regard and equal rights for women and men?

Man! You guys really bug me, with this ‘politically correct’ stuff! ;)

]]> By: Shane http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8818 Shane Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:07:17 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8818 When I was a child my father bought me an old alarm clock. I had so much fun pulling it apart and inspecting all the tiny gears and springs. But when I tried to put it back together I had no idea where to start. I am now working as a reductionist scientist. Studying science was very satisfying...putting together a concept of how the world and living things are arranged on an atomic scale. I can now look at anything and have a mental picture of its molecular structure. Yet I am constantly reminded that I have never actually seen a molecule (except perhaps pictures of a few fuzzy xenon atoms). And I have no realistic explanation for how a protein folds, how it catalyses reactions or how the genome of anything more complex than a bacteria actually controls the functioning of the organism. Research itself is a stark contrast to the ordered bed time stories presented in scientific texts. Mostly it is black magic, trial and error and good old empiricism. I can think of few breakthroughs in science that came about from careful prediction and planning. Reductionism is by its nature retrospective and selective. Real discovery tends to happen despite our work rather than because of it. The law of diminishing returns is endlessly apparent. The heroes of science made major discoveries on a yearly basis. Now it is more common to toil for multiple years for an outside chance of finding somthing novel. When we do manage to hit paydirt the road to success is often so long and arduous that no-one ever bothers to walk it again. Science is also an incredibly resource intensive endeavor. The sterile plastic disposables and unstable enzymes shipped around the world in biochem alone would make a nonrecycling suburbanite blush. This network of material interdependency is incredibly vulnerable to peak oil. Large companies with money to spare are no longer capable of innovative research, which instead they buy from small companies and universities. These will dry up and blow away when the first economic shock waves of energy restriction hit us, leaving the door to innovation closed (though it was only being used to make antidepressants and appetite suppressors anyway). Reductionism is a luxury, a curiosity that will not retain its importance in the future of science. Empiricism will return, along with the harsher rules as to what is worth worrying about. When I was a child my father bought me an old alarm clock. I had so much fun pulling it apart and inspecting all the tiny gears and springs. But when I tried to put it back together I had no idea where to start.

I am now working as a reductionist scientist. Studying science was very satisfying…putting together a concept of how the world and living things are arranged on an atomic scale. I can now look at anything and have a mental picture of its molecular structure. Yet I am constantly reminded that I have never actually seen a molecule (except perhaps pictures of a few fuzzy xenon atoms). And I have no realistic explanation for how a protein folds, how it catalyses reactions or how the genome of anything more complex than a bacteria actually controls the functioning of the organism.

Research itself is a stark contrast to the ordered bed time stories presented in scientific texts. Mostly it is black magic, trial and error and good old empiricism. I can think of few breakthroughs in science that came about from careful prediction and planning. Reductionism is by its nature retrospective and selective. Real discovery tends to happen despite our work rather than because of it. The law of diminishing returns is endlessly apparent. The heroes of science made major discoveries on a yearly basis. Now it is more common to toil for multiple years for an outside chance of finding somthing novel. When we do manage to hit paydirt the road to success is often so long and arduous that no-one ever bothers to walk it again.

Science is also an incredibly resource intensive endeavor. The sterile plastic disposables and unstable enzymes shipped around the world in biochem alone would make a nonrecycling suburbanite blush. This network of material interdependency is incredibly vulnerable to peak oil. Large companies with money to spare are no longer capable of innovative research, which instead they buy from small companies and universities. These will dry up and blow away when the first economic shock waves of energy restriction hit us, leaving the door to innovation closed (though it was only being used to make antidepressants and appetite suppressors anyway).

Reductionism is a luxury, a curiosity that will not retain its importance in the future of science. Empiricism will return, along with the harsher rules as to what is worth worrying about.

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8804 ChandraShakti Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:31:02 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8804 It looked to me that the first couple of paragraphs were quoting and then he shifted to summarizing. If I misinterpreted that, then I stand corrected. I did make an excepion for quoting in my original comment tho. It looked to me that the first couple of paragraphs were quoting and then he shifted to summarizing. If I misinterpreted that, then I stand corrected. I did make an excepion for quoting in my original comment tho.

]]> By: JimFive http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8798 JimFive Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:42:40 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8798 Chandra, You might also note that Leon was quoting Frankl and thus does not have the freedom to edit pronouns as he sees fit. Also, usage such as "such a view of man" is obviously referring to mankind, if it was referring to males it would be either "such a view of men" or "such a view of a man" Chandra,
You might also note that Leon was quoting Frankl and thus does not have the freedom to edit pronouns as he sees fit.

Also, usage such as “such a view of man” is obviously referring to mankind, if it was referring to males it would be either “such a view of men” or “such a view of a man”

]]> By: ChandraShakti http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8795 ChandraShakti Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:22:39 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8795 Fair enough. I happen to agree with him in this case. Fair enough. I happen to agree with him in this case.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8793 Jason Godesky Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:04:34 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/04/the-failure-of-reductionism/#comment-8793 That was Ben's post. I don't always agree with Ben, and he doesn't always agree with me. This is a case in point. He thinks it's important; I think it's pedantic. That was Ben’s post.

I don’t always agree with Ben, and he doesn’t always agree with me. This is a case in point. He thinks it’s important; I think it’s pedantic.

]]>