Doug, > I have not read "On the Origin of Objects"; I may browse it if I ever > have some free time.
I think you would find it quite to your liking - the author himself would say that he is _not_ a reductionist. I have read all the comments in this thread, and I think we have been talking a bit past each other. The main interest here on the list seems to be in explanation and prediction - epistemology. My concerns with reductionism are purely ontological - as a philsopher, I am concerned with the ultimate nature of reality. Science of course can be done in lots of manners, and in the wake of logical positivism is often done in an instrumental way (I think that is quite detrimental, but that is another topic for another day...) So I think we were actually talking past each other: you were talking about levels of description (exclusively), and I was talking about ontology (albeit a new form of ontology, see the Cantwell-Smith book, which deviates very much from tratitional philosophical considerations on this topic). > Don't get me wrong: I do not totally reject reductionism. Well, > actually, I do, as regards to finding any utility in it for myself. But > other people seem to swear by it, and I am truly happy for them. Agreed :-) Science profits from an abundance of ideas. I have never understood why in science everybody is bashing at each other. More harmony could be expected, after all, we all have the common goal of understanding the world. Cheers, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ ============================================================ 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
