[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[david buchanan]

dmb explained "reductionism" to Krimel:

Imagine if I described the music of a string quartet in terms of vibrations per second. Imagine that I report the frequencies with absolutely perfect precision and emphatically insist that there could be no music without those vibrations. All of that would be undeniably true. But if you objected because all this is irrelevant to music AS music, you'd be right. If you objected because I'd reduced music to a quantification of the physical facts, you'd be right. And that's what I'm saying about biological explanations of culture and language. I don't deny the biological facts any more than you'd deny the fact that strings vibrate. ...My dictionary doesn't have a picture of you along with this entry, but it could.... REDUCTIONISM |riˈdək sh əˌnizəm|noun often derogatorythe practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.


Krimel replied:


My dictionary actually has a picture of you alongside an entry reading: reductionism |riˈdək sh əˌnizəm|noun a term Dave uses when he wants a plausible sounding excuse for dismissing someone's argument in the absence of actually having a valid counter argument. ..The way you toss out this term is like a chemist dismissing all of physics because it attempts to break chemical processes into more fundamental inorganic relationships. Or a biologist dismissing chemistry because it breaks life down into simpler more fundamental phenomena...


dmb says:

No, Krimel. The explanation of reductionism is a valid counter argument. Like I JUST said, I don't deny the biological mechanisms underlying language and culture any more than I would deny that vibrating strings are essentially to musical performance. I'm simply saying that it is reductionistic to explain the latter in terms of the former. Many moons ago the analogy involved an explanation of a road trip a road trip in terms of gasoline consumption. I mean, it really seems that you don't understand what the problem is. Every time I point this out you reply with a re-assertion of more reductionism. 

Okay, at this point I'm not asking you to defend your position or any particular scientific finding. I just want to know that you actually comprehend the meaning of the term "reductionism". I sincerely felt that you NEEDED to see the definition from a neutral third party. I mean, it's hard to believe that you can't grasp such a concept and yet you have absolutely nothing to say to the charge. Every time you treat the issue as if it were just some sort of trick to avoid the "real" issue. But as I see it, your reductionism is thee central flaw in your whole perspective. It is apparently a part of your core beliefs and it colors just about everything you say. It has a big effect on who you take as your intellectual heroes. Wilson, for example, has also been charged with reductionism. Dawkins fits your style too. Nobody criticized these guys for getting the facts wrong and nobody is suggesting that their work be dismissed as irrelevant. That's just not the problem with reductionism.

Can you convince me that you even understand this charge? Obviously, that's the only way you're ever going to come up with a reply to the charge that makes any sense. You realize at least that much, don't you? C'mon, be serious. Be sincere. Be philosophical. You can do it. I think.





 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5