Phil Henshaw wrote: > Maybe there are two sides to reductionism, the 'good' reduction of a problem > that locates the true central solution, and the 'bad' reduction of the > environment to fit the solution you prefer.
I like the basic sentiment; but I wouldn't like the logical conclusion. Reduction is neither good nor bad, only appropriate or inappropriate for any given context. Even in the seemingly bad case where one myopically hyper-reduces some problem and/or solution so that important externalities are ignored, whether such reduction is good or bad depends on your viewpoint. In microcosm, from the individual who benefits in the very short-term, it's good. In the "mesocosm", where the environment embedding that individual has to compensate (or cannot compensate) for the hyper-reduction, it's bad. But then in the macrocosm, the individual probably created a lot of "waste" that is seen by some other set of processes as a food source, which makes it good again. In the end, reduction is just a method and, when used, it'll either achieve your ends or it won't. The trick is generating reliable estimates for when it will or won't achieve particular ends. And that's why I like the basic sentiment but not the value judgments of "good" or "bad". -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
