Text 333, 70 rader
Skriven 2004-10-08 06:07:00 av Lennart Kiil (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Interview with Mayr
===============================



"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message 
news:ck2bt9$1t45$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> "Lennart Kiil" <kiilx@xtele2adsl.dk> wrote:
>> > Reductionism is not dead - in fact it is one of the main foundation
>> > stones of the scientific method.
>
>> LK:-
>> This is certainly true, reductionism is a viable scientific
>> method. I think
>> and hope that what Mayr meant was that we cannot understand
>> nature and gain
>> complete knowledge of its workings by just examinig it from the smallest
>> level we can detect. In other words it is one-leveled exclusive
>> epistemological reductionism that is dead (if such a caricature
>> ever existed
>> in the first place).
>
> JE:-
> Could you please expand on what you
> mean within evolutionary theory by:
> ".. one-leveled exclusive
> epistemological reductionism that is dead"

LK:-
In general: If epistemological reductionism is taken to mean that all 
phenomena can be most completely understood in terms of the behavior of the 
smallest detectable entities and that we can gain our knowledge the fastest 
by pursuing the inquiry only at this microphysical level, then I must 
conclude that epistemological reductionism is dead. This is a descriptive 
statement on my part, not a normative or evaluative one. There is no need to 
flog a dead horse (or any horse for that matter) so I am not going to argue 
why this probably also serves us better (shortly it has to do with the fact 
that we can never really get outside the system we are trying to 
understand).

Within evolutionary theory I guess exclusive focus on the genic level could 
be considered epistemological reductionism.
Back in university I wrote my thesis on the controversies between Gould and 
Dawkins. In my view we can get the most complete understanding of living 
systems by paying attention to both of these men. They both have their 
fallacies too of course. Goulds hierarchy to easily falls pray to the lazy 
relativism that is the unfortunate zeitgeist we live with, such as the 
argument that all levels are equally important/unimportant. Dawkins on the 
other hand, I think, has tended to ascribe to much to the genes, in more 
than one way.

In conclusion, it is good to inquire from a number of levels because this 
will speed up the process of scientific progress. I think exclusive 
epistemological reductionism is effectivly dead within evolutionary theory 
because now it seems to be evident to most researchers that it is not the 
most fruitful outlook.

I apologize for my terrible prose, I had to much to drink yesterday (this 
morning actually)

best regards,
Lennart Kiil
www.zensci.com
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/8/04 6:07:53 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)