From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Reductionism, etc (was LIFE GOES ON)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 20:45:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.160435.23791@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Douglas Graham writes
>>
>>I for one, hope that we never achieve that perfection.  Life
>>would be pretty boring if we knew all the answers.  What would there
>>be left to do?  But I see nothing wrong with saying that our
>>approximations get better as time goes on.
>
>But that's not what I hear the reductionists saying. What I hear is,
>"Science explains (or can explain) everything", which is an
>astoundingly arrogant thing to say. Case in point is the boiling down
>of life to "electro-chemical reactions". There seem to be some who
>can't or won't consider that all we'll ever have are approximations. 

I won't pretend to speak for reductionists as a whole, as I'm really
not all that familiar with the literature on the philosophy of science.
My dictionary says that reductionism is the attempt to explain biological
processes by the same explanations that chemists and physicists use
to interpret inanimate matter, and that sounds perfectly reasonable
to me.  Why should we think of ourselves as anything other than
self-replicating biological computers?  I think this whole business
of whether or not we can acheive *perfect* knowledge of anything is
a complete red herring.

If we were to build a lifelike robot out of silicon and steel, would
you feel the need to describe this robot in terms of some mysterious
life force that possesses it?  Note that we could build such a robot
without a perfect understanding of all the subatomic particles that
form the atoms of the silicon and steel.

>>I'm in full agreement with you here, but I think we're straying
>>quite far from your mystical position,
>
>I don't think so. My "mystical" position is simply, "I don't know."
>That is, I'm not about to insist that the universe squeeze itself
>into my range of perception and conform to my sensibilities. This is
>the beginning and, I daresay, the whole, of mystical perspective. I
>can't imagine why anyone would exclaim "Life is just physics and
>chemistry!" unless they had some dire personal need to believe that. 

I say that because a) life sure looks like physics and chemistry
to me, and b) because I feel that if we wish to understand life,
we must treat it that way.  I do not understand how it is possible
to apply science to such a fuzzy formulation of life as:

   #You do not possess life any more than you possess the air you
   #breathe. Life possesses *you*, and can as easily toss you away as
   #give you birth. So why cling so tightly to _it_? 

>>>Better to what extent? How much better can [theory] be made? If you think
>>>there's a theory somewhere that can be hammered into irrefutability,
>>>you're getting pretty durn close to religion. 
>
>>Better to the extent that they have better predictive capabilities I
>>suppose.
>
>Yes, but it either gets abandoned or pushed aside at some point, or
>it becomes religious doctrine (which is what I consider reductionism
>to be). Are you willing to push reductionism aside if the time
>comes? 

Well, similar to the way that I can't imagine what would convince me that
a god exists since nobody has ever explained to me in a satisfactory
manner what a god is, I can't imagine what would convince me that I
should discard reductionism since I am not aware of any alternatives.
As far as I can tell, reductionism simply means that life is amenable
to scientific investigation, so your question is the equivalent of asking
me if I would discard science if the time comes.  Could you give me an
example of an observation that should cause me to do this?

>>For example, we know now that Newton's theory of gravitation was
>>only an approximation to Einstein's.  So, in that sense, Einstein's theory
>>is better than Newton's.  But that doesn't make Newton's work useless
>>or irrelevant.  It doesn't make Newton's theory flimsy.  And Newton would
>>not have been wrong to think that he had unlocked one of the secrets of
>>the universe.
>
>How would he or we know he had unlocked one of its secrets unless the
>universe itself had told him so? Perhaps we invent the existence
>of these secrets and then proceed to crack them with methods based on
>preconception, all the while the universe is up to something quite
>different. 

Because his theory works.  Satellites really do orbit the earth pretty
much like Newton said they would.

>>>But the principle point is, as I said, the process of
>>>discovery itself. Plowing under old misconceptions. The big Wow that
>>>comes every time we're reminded that things aren't necessarily what
>>>they seem, and are quite a bit more.
>
>>What are those "things" you're referring to?  By that statement,
>>it seems to me that you do agree that there is some objective
>>reality out there,
>
>Not necessarily. The "things" I speak of live in the mind of the
>perceiver. I don't see how I can know that there's an objective
>reality, as I've never been able to venture "out there", nor have I
>found the walls that separate it from "in here". Looked all over for
>'em, even under the sofa cushions. 

Well, whatever you want to call it, there's something that we all
share.  Whether it's objective reality or not, it's what matters
to us.  If you fall off a tall building, you'll accelerate at 9.8 m/s**2
and go splat when you hit the ground just like I will.  It is that
shared "reality" that you are discovering when you do science, and
it doesn't make science any less useful that the "reality" may
in fact be a universal delusion or whatever you think it is.

>>and that we do learn more about it through science.
>
>What we really learn through science is something of the nature of
>mind, particularly the mind that does science. 

So, science didn't really teach us how to harness nuclear energy
or put a man on the moon or conquer (some) diseases?

>>If a scientist
>>could make an amoeba from a vat of chemicals in his lab, would you still
>>consider the life of an amoeba as unfathomable?
>
>Oh yes. Again, I don't make a distinction between amoeba-life and
>other manifestations of life. There's just life. The scientist might
>be able to explain, in current terms, how he thinks the chemicals
>combine to make the amoeba, but could he tell me why?

Why does there have to be an answer to that question?  It's for religion
to concoct nonsensical questions like this, and then provide equally
nonsensical answers.  It seems a tad silly to accuse a scientist of being
unenlightend because he refuses to play the part of a witch doctor.

>>I must admit that I share some of those feelings, but I'm also quite
>>aware of the damage that has been done in the past, and continues to
>>be done in the present, by those who shun science because they're
>>afraid of what they might find out.  I don't want to be one of those
>>people.
>
>Me either, and I don't think I am. But I'd be wary of anyone or
>anything that claimed to have all the answers, or even all the
>questions. 

By attacking reductionism, I do think you are attacking science.  You are
attacking the notion that science can explain life in the same way that it
explains other phenomena, but I haven't yet seen you offer any justification
for singling out life as anything special.  Worse, since there really is
no justification for singling out life, you've had to broaden your attack
to one on science as a whole.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism