The Failure of Reductionism
by Jason GodeskyScientific reductionism is the cornerstone of modern scientific thought. It is the axiomatic belief that everything can be understood by breaking it down into smaller and smaller components, so biology can be understood in terms of chemistry, which can itself be understood in terms of physics. Reductionism is the philosophical foundation whereby scientists try to reduce a problem to its most basic components, control for other factors, and test only a single hypothesis at a time. It is an undeniably powerful tool, but the exuberance of the Enlightenment has proclaimed it as the One Right Way to know everything. Like any other tool, reductionism has its flaws, and there are times when other ways of knowing are actually better.
The problem of emergent properties is a classic rebuttal to reductionism. By itself, sodium is a soft, silvery-white metal that reacts violently with water by releasing heat and flammable hydrogen gas. Chlorine is a poisonous gas. But combined, they become salt–commonly found in the vast majority of the world’s water. Hydrogen and oxygen are both gases; both are incredibly volatile and combustible. Combined, they form water.
Or, the question of consciousness. We understand a great deal about how the brain works, but bridging the gap from neurological functions to psychological experience has proven incredibly difficult. Harrison Wein’s “Of Chemistry and Consciousness“:
Can such things ever be explained? Chalmers says that first person data cannot be subject to the standard method of reductive explanation. We may one day explain how memory works, what neurons are involved in selective attention and what chemicals are associated with emotions, but even then, he argued, there will still be a further question: “Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by subjective experience?”
And herein lies the heart of the debate. Is subjective experience really something different and insoluble, as Chalmers claims, or is it just our egotistical minds that need to believe it is so? When Chalmers polled the audience about it, a majority raised their hands at the question, “Is there a further phenomenon over and above these functions that calls for explanation?” Chalmers noted, “A pretty strong majority say yes, even in this bastion of reductionism.”
More to the point, consider pharmaceuticals. Many of our pharmaceuticals are derived from herbs. The goal of the pharmaceutical is to isolate the chemical compound in the herb that treats a specific problem, isolate it, and create a concentrated dose of it. In other words, it approaches herbs with reductionism. But consider aspirin:
Aspirin is a classic case in point. Salicylic acid is the active ingredient in Aspirin tablets, and was first isolated from the bark of the White Willow tree. It is a relatively simple compound to make synthetically, however, Aspirin is known for its ability to cause stomach irritation and in some cases ulceration of the stomach wall.
The herbal extract from the bark of the White Willow tree generally does not cause stomach irritation due to other, so called ‘non-active ingredients’ contained in the bark, which function to protect the lining of the stomach thereby preventing ulceration of the stomach wall.
Reductionism is, by definition, an act of taking things out of context. As E.O. Wilson argues in Consilience, it can only ever be half the story. Reductionism is a powerful tool, but it should never be the only tool. Wilson argues that what lies ahead of us is to begin assembling all the knowledge that reductionism has given us into an actual understanding of the world.
More often here, you’ll find us using systems thinking. Complexity theory and chaos theory are the favorites of E.O. Wilson. Beyond those, there are realms that are entirely non-scientific: intuitive thinking, mythological thinking, metaphorical thinking, et cetera ad infinitum. In thesis #23, we discussed many of the non-scientific ways of knowing that existed long before civilization.
We can understand and value science, without falling into the trap of making a religion of it as the Enlightenment so often did, with Science as the One True Path to Salvation. Perhaps the best way to do that is to always remember that as powerful as science is, it is only one of many ways to understand the world. All those ways are mental tools, and like any other tool, you use the right one for the job. A hammer is a very useful thing, but every once in a while, a screwdriver is far more useful.
It’s hard to engage in scientific debate, especially in the area of psychology without it quickly going from the metaphoric/experiential to biological reductionism.
A great book that tackles this, and provides an abundance of Data for those interested is Dr. Schwartz’s book, The mind & the Brain. This focuses on the history of neuroscience, and to some degree phsyics. Since ultimately if you continue to reduce, you get to the quantum level–and this breaks down the rules of classical physics. Quantum mechanics suggests a basis for “free will” you might say, a flux of possibilities. The brain over time may be driven by conditioning, which re-wires neural circuitry, and life experiences, diet, thoughts all contribute to the biochemsitry of the brain.
Also Henry Emmons, new book The Joy of CHemistry, is another book that tackles Eastern Reductionism. Both books go forth in a very scientific manner, and provide evidence from brain scanning, meta-analysis and information from nobelaureate Physicists.
Both come from a more Western/Buddhist approach, in terms of the need for meditation, contemplation, for regulating brain chemistry–and helping to alleviate many of the ailments of modernity, ADHD, OCD, Depression to name some common issues.
I suggest both books to those interested. They provide a strong basis, for the idea of “free will” in a scientific/physics backed theory—rather than the notion that we are pre-determined entirely by our brain chemistry (and recently a resurgence in experience’s impact on biology).
Its hard to scientific validate “intuition/gut feelings” but these quantitatively seem to provide many people with some sort of information. If you spend enough time in the woods, your intuition skills appear to increase, perhaps its just your sensory systems become more alive, and the threshold is reduced for what it takes to breach your threshold for awareness? But there is life beyond grey matter, in the form of quantum energy…maybe that energy is what many of the Shaman’s/Buddhist etc. refer to?
Comment by Bubba — 6 April 2006 @ 11:25 AM
You might find this excerpt from “Man’s Search for Meaning,” by Victor Frankl, interesting:
THE COLLECTIVE NEUROSIS
Every age has its own collective neurosis, and every age needs its own psychotherapy to cope with it. The existential vacuum which is the mass neurosis of the present time can be described as a private and personal form of nihilism; for nihilism can be defined as the contention that being has no meaning. As for psychotherapy, however, it will never be able to cope with this state of affairs on a mass scale if it does not keep itself free from the impact and influence of the contemporary trends of a nihilistic philosophy; otherwise it represents a symptom of the mass neurosis rather than its possible cure. Psychotherapy would not only reflect a nihilistic philosophy but also, even though unwillingly and unwittingly, transmit to the patient what is actually a caricature rather than a true picture of man.
First of all, there is a danger inherent in the teaching of man’s “nothingbutness,” the theory that man is nothing but the result of biological, psychological and sociological conditions, or the product of heredity and environment. Such a view of man makes a neurotic believe what he is prone to believe anyway, namely, that he is the pawn and victim of outer influences or inner circumstances. This neurotic fatalism is fostered and strengthened by a psychotherapy which denies that man is free.
To be sure, a human being is a finite thing, and his freedom is restricted. It is not freedom from conditions, but it is freedom to take a stand toward the conditions. As I once put it: “As a professor in two fields, neurology and psychiatry, I am fully aware of the extent to which man is subject to biological, psychological and sociological conditions. But in addition to being a professor in two fields I am a survivor of four camps—concentration camps, that is— and as such I also bear witness to the unexpected extent to which man is capable of defying and braving even the worst conditions conceivable.”
Psychoanalysis has often been blamed for its so-called pan-sexualism. I, for one, doubt whether this reproach has ever been legitimate. However, there is something which seems to me to be an even more erroneous and dangerous assumption, namely, that which I call “pan-determinism.” By that I mean the view of man which disregards his capacity to lake a stand toward any conditions whatsoever. Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself, whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.
By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.
Comment by Leon — 6 April 2006 @ 12:05 PM
Victor Frankl knew what it was like to survive a horible collapse+.
Change is not only an inherent quality of humans, its the way of the world. The Flux continues, be it ecologically or psychologically. Reductionism doesn’t gel with the vast amount of human experience. Additionally, Reductionism can lead to a nihilistic view…Contemporary psychology faces this daily, so called reductionistic views of how people behave, allows people to scapegoat, external locus of control ideas–upon the magical “biochemical controls.” Sure biochemistry may tilt the brain, but doesn’t seem to cause choice to end. Most OCD patients can feel the urge to stop, and do from time to time, this “fight” against obessive thoughts, turning into compulsive action–is most noticeable in this DSM diagnosis.
Change, perhaps dramatic change is on the doorstep once again, how you navigate it can stack the deck in your favor–alah, adaption/change.
Comment by Bubba — 6 April 2006 @ 12:23 PM
Leon, I had trouble following your argument because of semantics. I presume that women, girls and boys were also included, but saw no such indication. While it is fine to leave archaic language in a quoted excerpt, it is really hard to read when you continue using man when you mean humanity in your own parts of the writing.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 1:00 PM
Oi … Chandra, I use “she” for the indefinite pronoun, but you’re just trying to make trouble. It wasn’t ambiguous at all. I always thought of this particular complaint as unbelievably pedantic.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 2:08 PM
Ms. Shakti, I submit that your difficulty in understanding the post by Leon is in one sense quite understandable, but I suspect that difficulty in understanding was not your point (I even doubt that you actually had any) — rather, your intent was to expose and change what you find to be sexist usage. If that was your intent, please excuse me for suggesting that perhaps it would be more fruitful to be more, er, straightforward in requesting it.
My own stance is that the effort by concerned people to change behaviors in the English-speaking world by changing linguistic usage, particularly where gender-associated words (e.g., “mankind”) are used to refer to whole populations inclusive of both genders has failed. I can understand the enthusiasm of those who want to advance the feminist cause in whatever area, and appreciate the effort to achieve a “non-sexist” usage. However, I do not think that an outside-in linguistic change effort will (or even can) change our society.
A case in point, from another language: the word “ren” in Mandarin Chinese, refers to “person” rather than “male person” for “female person.” It is used to refer to humanity as a whole in just the nonsexist way that one would hope ordinary English commonly demonstrates (and doesn’t). However, Chinese society, historically and even in the present, is very notably sexist.
The only people who trouble to use non-sexist language intensively are academics writing for other academics. The general acceptance of this attempt at cultural change has been virtually nil. I think it would be dandy if that change could gain greater acceptance, and if there was any evidence whatever that those who adopt non-sexist language also adopt nonsexist behaviors. Alas, I do not find it to be so.
Comment by Clarke Fountain — 6 April 2006 @ 2:10 PM
Yes, you two got me. I was raising trouble for a specific purpose. Jason, you often use she as the generic pronoun, but you also on occasion use he. And I have never caught you using Man when you mean humanity. Clarke, perhaps I am wrong about this, but if I had simply made a straight- forward request that Leon use Human rather than Man when he is referring to all of us, would it have gotten the attention my tactic did?
I do not usually make a big deal out of this. However, I’ve been spending a great deal of time on this site lately and seem to recall a recent posting by one of the tribe members about needing to be aware of how what we say influences how we see things. So I chose to point out the sexist bias of Leon’s posting in a provacative manner rather than ignore it.
Sure a simple request to change the language could have done the same thing, but I tend to doubt that it would have done so as effectively.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 2:51 PM
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.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 3:04 PM
Fair enough. I happen to agree with him in this case.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 3:22 PM
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”
Comment by JimFive — 6 April 2006 @ 3:42 PM
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.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 5:31 PM
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.
Comment by Shane — 6 April 2006 @ 8:07 PM
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!
Comment by Leon — 7 April 2006 @ 11:10 AM
This discussion really belongs under Ben’s article, so that’s where I’m putting my response.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 7 April 2006 @ 12:05 PM
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!
Comment by bubba — 7 April 2006 @ 12:22 PM
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
Comment by ov — 13 April 2006 @ 11:39 PM
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.
Comment by Pavel Chichikov — 30 April 2006 @ 9:11 PM