Reductionism

and its
Alternatives

2-1-2006
Essay 2
Wijsgerige Vorming
Chimed Jansen
Chimed.jansen@gmail.com
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . 3

Reductionism . . . . . . . 3

Intertheoretic Reductionism . . . . . 3

The Range of Reductionism . . . . . 4

Holism . . . . . . . . 5

Complex Systems Approach versus Reductionism and Holism . 5

Conclusion . . . . . . . . 6

Bibliography . . . . . . . . 7
Introduction
Reductionism is a tool used to understand and explain processes or objects through
analysing the parts which make them up. It is used widely in science and is an implicit
basis for accepting the relevance of science. This essay explores reductionism in an
attempt to identify its usefulness and limits. To accomplish this end different forms of
reductionism will be discussed. Comparisons will be made with two alternative theories,
holism and complex systems approach. This will be concluded with a personal reflection
on the merits of each approach.

Reductionism
Reductionism is a process which can be applied to many fields. In the most general
terms it is the explaining of complex entities through appealing to simpler and or more
fundamental levels. It can be applied to theories, objects or phenomenon and can take the
form of a process, theory or belief dependant on a person’s level of commitment to its
premise.

To allow for a focused debate about reductionism I would like to introduce two examples
of how reductionism might be applied. First an example from scientific theory, biology,
and second an object, the automobile. The reductionist view is that biology can be
explained by chemistry and the automobile explained by engineering and physics. In the
case of biology this can be seen in the example of the study of heredity being explained
by the nature of DNA macromolecules a chemical phenomenon. While in the case of the
automobile the engine is designed to convert chemical energy into kinetic energy through
parts engineered to harness the laws of physics.

Reductionism implies the acceptance of realism as it involves approaching an ultimate

reality or real theory which exists at the basis of all other reality or theories. Particle
physics is generally accepted as the core theory and the particles it describes as the core
level of physical reality. This is the reason the theory physicists are attempting to find
which combines the three fundamental forces and quantum physics, has been dubbed the
theory of everything. For a reductionist realist such a theory would indeed be the core to
understanding ‘everything’.

Intertheoretic Reductionism
A specific type of reductionism is particularly relevant to science, intertheoretic
reductionism as described by Nagel in his book, The Structure of Science,1961. In this
model two theories are reducible if the more fundamental theory explains all
phenomenon explained by the theory to be reduced and more. The second prerequisite is
that both theories are sufficiently developed. For Nagel this includes the presence of
derivability and connectabilty between the theories. Derivability is the simply the ability
of one theory to be derived from the other theory. Connectability is the presence of
bridge laws which can be used to connect the two theories, these can be conditions or
intermediate theories. 1 An example of a theory from biology reducing to a theory in
chemistry could be a theory of energy. For example a theory in biology is that one of the
1
Peter Machamer and Jacqueline Sullivan, Leveling Reductionism,
philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000400/00/Leveling_reduction,8.24.doc
features of life is metabolism. In chemistry there is a theory that chemical reactions store
or release energy through altering the composition or conformation of the involved
molecules. A bridge law in this case might be the second thermodynamic law of entropy
which suggests that the ordered systems of live entities found in biology require energy to
exist. The result of the reduction would be metabolism is equal to chemical reactions
which store or release energy.

The problem with this theory is that often the bridge laws don’t exist. For example if we
want to reduce the entire field of biology to chemistry this includes behavior patterns of
animals and the ‘web of life’ or patterns of species interdependence. These are features
for which no bridge laws exist to connect these patterns to chemistry. This results in a
severe limitation in the number of theories which can be reduced successfully. In fact for
many scientists the only completely successful application of intertheoretic reduction was
in the reduction of ideal gas laws to kinetic theory.

The Range of Reductionism

Defendants of the strong form of reductionism hold that reductionism always applies.
This can lead to conflicts in cases where additional properties seem to be apparent on one
level and absent at a deeper level. The long held view of the life force is an example of
such a property. This was the quintessential argument against the reduction of biology to
the level of chemistry. Recent advances in fields such as biochemistry have found
nothing to imply the property was anything more than simply a phantom of biologists and
spiritualists. However it would be naïve to assume this to be definitive proof. Religious
beliefs can also become victims of reductionism, where the technique is assumed to be
able to explain all phenomenon there is no reason to believe in supernatural influence
through God(s), demons, angels, etc.

It is here that these reductionists would apply the Occam’s Razor, which can be stated as:
“Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.” 2 With this in mind all
theories of additional forces beyond those needed to explain an event are made
redundant. Of course how it is applied depends on the person using it and in the end it
can be seen as merely a rhetorical tool, for those who disagree can claim their own theory
to be simpler. Chatton devised an anti-razor which stated: "If three things are not enough
to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on." 3
This anti-razor, is in fact not so much an opposite of Occam’s Razor as its balance. It
avoids the oversimplification which can occur through the application of Occam’s Razor.
In the example of reductionism it avoids ‘greedy reductionism’, reducing a problem to
the point at which that which is to be understood ceases to be identifiable, and represents
moderate reductionism. In greedy reductionism the problem to be solved is simply
avoided by averting attention to details which can no longer solve the problem. For
instance in explaining the colours of bird feathers through chemistry alone, we will never
find all the reasons for their existence. These may include attracting mates, camouflage,
or scaring predators, all of which must be explained at the level of biology if they are to
be understood.

2
Occam’s Razor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
3
Occam’s Razor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor
Holism
Moving away from reductionism we find the holism which does not even consider
moderate reductionism a valid process. Holism maintains that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. This denies the validity of reductionism and gives an added value to
all complex entities. A fundamental difference exists between these entities and their
parts such that any reduction looses the essence. For holists biology entails more than
chemistry occurring within living organisms, it studies processes which only exist at the
level of biology. The automobile on the other hand can only be understood as a complete
object, once it is reduced it ceases to be or represent the car.

Complex Systems Approach versus Reductionism and Holism

This argument is developed in complexity science which analyses systems built up of
parts coupled in a nonlinear fashion. This means that the effect of influencing part of a
system may be non proportional to the size of the influence. For example replacing an
amino-acid in an enzyme with another amino-acid may have no effect on the enzyme or it
may drastically alter the enzyme (in activity and or tertiary form). In neither of these
cases is the effect proportional to the change which has taken place. The roots of this
approach lie in systems theory, which developed as a way of looking at the complexity
and interdependence of systems built up of parts which form an emergent whole. Here
emergence is specifically the formation of complex patterns from interactions between
simple sets of variables. The advantage of the complex system approach is that it allows
space for both non-linear and linear systems. Thus in our biology example the DNA –
heredity relationship is seen as linear (though DNA it self is a good example of an
emergent system), while the feather colour – chemistry relationship is seen as nonlinear
(in aspects which deal with bird-bird interaction or bird-predator interaction). In the case
of the automobile a linear relationship would be the relationship between aerodynamics
and mileage. While a non-linear relationship might be the relationship between the form
of the car and the year it was made, reflecting cultural influences and technological
advances in society for example.

Several features of complex systems set it apart from the classic reductionism / holism
dualism. First of all it includes space for the influence of time; a complex system
features a history. Secondly it can be nested within another complex system, thus
emergent systems can form from other systems for example, a bird exists of cells which
contain DNA each of which are complex systems. Thirdly it may contain feedback loops
whereby the system influences its parts or influences, thereby altering it self. These
features help us analyse the context within which we find the subject, where reductionism
seems to imply analysing the subject as if it were autonomous. Systems theory is
replacing reductionism in many areas of science because of this ability to combine a
broader set of influences in the understanding of a phenomenon. 4

4
Anonymous, Systems Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
Conclusion
When I first read about reductionism I had the feeling it was missing the point. This is
because in reducing to lower ‘simpler’ levels phenomena are not necessarily any easier to
explain or understand. For example when we reduce from the level of biology to the
level of chemistry, hereditary traits are explained by variations in DNA macromolecules,
however reducing once again to the atomic, or subatomic, level ads no further
information to our understanding of the hereditary process. In fact at this level it
becomes almost imposable to describe the hereditary process at all. It is because of these
‘natural boundaries’ to reduction that I feel the process must be used within limits and
therefore I reject ‘strong reductionism’.

Another aspect in which I felt reductionism failed is in its inability to provide a complete
understanding of a process. Continuing with the example of hereditary traits, I feel that
even after a reduction has been made to the level of DNA there are other aspects involved
which exist at the macroscopic level. These would include the selection process involved
in finding sexual partners, survival attributes for specific environments and other
consequences of having specific traits. Together these could be called the environmental
aspects of hereditary traits.

Finally I felt reductionism lacked the influence of history. Again looking at the example
of hereditary traits, how can we understand heredity without looking at it in the context of
the generations passing through history? It is through looking at the processes over vast
spans of generations that we can identify the variation process that leads to the evolution
of traits. Furthermore it is by looking for evidence from the earliest stages of life on the
planet and the very beginning of hereditary traits that we can learn how it came to exist as
a process. Therefore time is an essential aspect of any phenomenon and cannot be
disregarded if one wishes to understand it.

These are the very elements introduced in the complex systems approach and it is no
surprise then that my conclusion is that the complex systems approach is superior to
either reductionism or holism. I feel the complex systems approach plays two important
roles, it is a path of moderation between two extremes and it widens the scope of our
understanding of phenomenon beyond the object, process or theory itself. I find its
replacing of the classic approaches of reductionism and holism a healthy and necessary
change.
Bibliography
Anonymous, Reductionism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Anonymous, Scientific Reductionism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_reductionism

Anonymous, Complex System, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

Anonymous, Emergence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Anonymous, Occam’s Razor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

J De La Piedra, Reductionism, Antireductionism and Supervenience,

http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/KleeCh5.html

S. Allen-Hermanson, W. Seager, Panpsychism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

2005, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Nigel Williams, Biologists Cut Reductionist Approach Down to Size, Science, 1997,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/277/5325/476

William Hasker, How Not To Be A Reductivist, 2003,

www.iscid.org/papers/Hasker_NonReductivism_103103.pdf