Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism



Robert J. Kolker wrote:

John Edser wrote:

Reduction is just another name for deduction.

Actually, John, you have this backwards. The reduction comes from the
inductive/abductive side of reasoning, e.g., electricity is like water
flowing in a pipe. It is ANA_logical and as such, an anathema to those
who would like to believe that reasoning can be reduced to the
performance of computations on symbols. It is this type of "reasoning"
which also is most responsible for the production of an increase in
knowledge, understanding, etc., although the deductive side is of
great importance in helping one to weed out the good inductions from
the bad inductions, as Robert has also maintained (below). BTW, Hume
notoriously maintained that 'All forms of reasoning are nothing but
comparing'. Given this, we can also come up with a compatible
definition for rationality, in that we can simply assume that our
rationality is 'the psychical product of ampliative inference
inference' (i.e., inductive/abductive "reasoning") which is
compatible with the root of the term rationality, ratio, which in
Greek or Latin means 'to compare'.

Without a good inductive
guess, reductionism would remain impossible because there would be nothing
to deduce from. Inducing a theoretical and testable construct requires a
level of imaginative intelligence which many reductionists find
unfathomable.


Ahmen!


What you are saying is that formulating or asserting causes abductively
is not an algorithmic process. I could not agree more. Given a finite
number of facts there are an infinite number of hypothetical posits that
can account for them. Picking the posit (which is what abduction is) is
an art and there is no guarantee that a fact will not be found that
falsifies the hypothetical causes. In short, theory formulation is the
highest form of guesswork. Highest in the sense that it is illuminated
by known facts and contstrained by its logical implications.


Kant was fond of referring to 'learned men who in handling their learning
betray an original deficiency that can never be mended'. Bravo, Robert.


There are two separate but related aspects to science: a) discovery b)
justification. Induction/abduction is part of the discovery aspect (i.e.
discovering causes) and deduction is the heart of the justification aspect.


Yes. There are actually two types of reasons, explanatory reasons which
pertain more to natural causes and justificatory reasons which pertain
more to rational agency. Good show, old bean. :)

PR


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Chinese Century
    ... but may I ask for a line of reasoning? ... > Good luck waiting for that. ... Robert is an expert in photography however. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Bloody Johnny Foreigner
    ... that the average quality is better. ... concrete reference to something appearing in print that I can check. ... Yet again Robert runs away from a challenge. ... reasoning. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: queries about sprintf
    ... >> In general I think your reasoning here is good. ... PS - Thank you Robert for the correction. ...
    (comp.std.c)