The problem with reductionism

[Magical Realist]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better. Which is essentially like extracting all the ingredients from a delicious homemade stew in order to understand it better. There is a distinctive character and "whatness" in the whole that is missed out on in the reductive analyses of its discrete parts. The question isn't just DO we understand it better. The question becomes WHAT is really understood about it in the end.

 

[exchemist]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better. Which is essentially like extracting all the ingredients from a delicious homemade stew in order to understand it better. There is a distinctive character and "whatness" in the whole that is missed out on in the reductive analyses of its parts. The question isn't DO we understand it better. The question becomes WHAT is really understood in the end?

The first order answer is: enough to enable successful predictions about what to expect from nature. The second order answer is: a closer approach to understanding physical reality. But it looks as if you are trawling for cod-iconoclastic input from axocanth, who will no doubt turn up shortly, with his trademark sarcasm, prejudices and facetiousness. So I'll bow out before that happens.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm open to all inputs-- your's and axocanth's and even James'. Tks for your contribution.

 

[James R]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better.

If you think about that statement, even for a moment, you'll realise it's not true. Not about everything. We only need to reduce things down to the most basic components when we want to understand the most basic components.

There is a distinctive character and "whatness" in the whole that is missed out on in the reductive analyses of its discrete parts.

I agree. A lot of science is about how "parts" interact in a "whole".

 

[exchemist]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better. Which is essentially like extracting all the ingredients from a delicious homemade stew in order to understand it better. There is a distinctive character and "whatness" in the whole that is missed out on in the reductive analyses of its discrete parts. The question isn't just DO we understand it better. The question becomes WHAT is really understood about it in the end.

To build on James R ‘s observation, a moment’s thought should make you realise that breaking things down into their constituents is done precisely in order to account for behaviour of the whole.

A chemist works out what atoms there are in a molecule and how arranged, in order to account for the chemical reactions undergone by the bulk substance composed of those molecules.

In kinetic theory or thermodynamics, we consider how molecules move and how energy is distributed among them, in order to account for bulk properties of the whole, such as pressure, temperature or specific heat capacity.

All of these are emergent properties, which have no meaning at the micro level but depend critically upon modelling at the atomic scale.

Can you give an example of this “whatness” of the whole that science fails to deal with? I’m sure there are many non-scientific attributes of things that are important to humanity, but it must remembered that the scope of science covers only the physical world.

 

[Magical Realist]

Can you give an example of this “whatness” of the whole that science fails to deal with?

One might be the DNA molecule. We can chemically break down all the atoms and bonds composing that molecule. But what does that really tell us about the nature and behavior of that molecule as whole? Is there emergent phenomena at the DNA level that cannot be deduced at the atomic level?

 

[exchemist]

One might be the DNA molecule. We can chemically break down all the atoms and bonds composing that molecule. But what does that really tell us about the nature and behavior of that molecule as whole? Is there emergent phenomena at the DNA level that cannot be deduced at the atomic level?

Everything. Most importantly the code of base pairs in each strand, which enables proteins to be manufactured by the cell. These proteins are either structural components of cells or enzymes that enable cellular biochemistry, e.g. metabolism, synthesis of polysaccharide structural components and so on. And of course the double strand structure explains how DNA replicates itself when cells divide, which is the basis of heredity.

But I asked you for an example of “whatness” that science fails to capture. DNA doesn’t seem to answer this, unless you can tell me something about DNA that science misses. Can you give an example?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better.

You reduce your argument to absurdity. We need to understand the totality, not just the fiddly bits.

 

[Magical Realist]

exchemist asks: But I asked you for an example of “whatness” that science fails to capture.

While much of the DNA's behavior CAN be deduced atomically, the specific nature of DNA as a structured system cannot be. Thus we consult not the physicist about DNA molecules but the biologist. And we concede a causal gap between the components and the whole by calling its holistically-generated properties "emergent." Does not emergent mean precisely NOT causally reducible to any of its components?

 

[C C]

While much of the DNA's behavior CAN be deduced atomically, the specific nature of DNA as a structured system cannot be. Thus we consult not the physicist about DNA molecules but the biologist. And we concede a causal gap between the components and the whole by calling its holistically-generated properties "emergent." Does not emergent mean precisely NOT causally reducible to any of its components?

Occasionally I care more about the ontological stripe than the explanatory. Like when encountering folk who seem to be referring to the biological stratum as if it is floating on its own without dependence on prior properties slash entities. (Well, I probably witness the "appearance" of that most in philosophy of mind articles/papers.)
_

 

[exchemist]

While much of the DNA's behavior CAN be deduced atomically, the specific nature of DNA as a structured system cannot be. Thus we consult not the physicist about DNA molecules but the biologist. And we concede a causal gap between the components and the whole by calling its holistically-generated properties "emergent." Does not emergent mean precisely NOT causally reducible to any of its components?

No, it just means a property that can only be attributed to the whole and not the individual parts. A good example in physics is temperature. A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is a property that only has meaning for an ensemble of molecules in thermal equilibrium, whereby their thermal energy is distributed in a particular statistical way. (Maxwell -Boltzmann distribution).

But with the DNA example, I'm not sure what you mean. There is no causal gap, so far as I'm aware. The X-ray diffraction pattern (physics) tells you the atomic arrangement, from which you work out the molecular subunits of base pairs etc (chemistry) ) and analysis of the sequences of base pairs tells you what proteins are coded for (biochemistry) and these proteins have particular functions in the cell (biology). So there's a hierarchy, sure, but no "gap" that I can think of.

 

[Pinball1970]

I'm open to all inputs-- your's and axocanth's and even James'. Tks for your contribution.

Hi MR.

In order to understand science today you have to look at was yesterday.
There was necessity, the world is confusing but we need to live in it. Rivers flood, we need to plan crops, people get sick, how do I build this? What area is my land compared to his? What is the best weapon?

Simple survival beginnings.

Also pure curiosity, the nature of numbers and how they interact, patterns. The orbits of the celestial bodies.

Modern science and the scientific method is just an extension of all that. Knowing how viruses evolve will save deaths, there is a scientific and human element.
Finding out how galaxies formed in the early universe will not save lives or create jobs but I am glad Euclid, Gaia, HST and JWST are pulling back the curtain on those questions.

Same at the LHC, WHAT is the universe?

 

[Magical Realist]

No, it just means a property that can only be attributed to the whole and not the individual parts. A good example in physics is temperature. A single molecule doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is a property that only has meaning for an ensemble of molecules in thermal equilibrium, whereby their thermal energy is distributed in a particular statistical way. (Maxwell -Boltzmann distribution).

But with the DNA example, I'm not sure what you mean. There is no causal gap, so far as I'm aware. The X-ray diffraction pattern (physics) tells you the atomic arrangement, from which you work out the molecular subunits of base pairs etc (chemistry) ) and analysis of the sequences of base pairs tells you what proteins are coded for (biochemistry) and these proteins have particular functions in the cell (biology). So there's a hierarchy, sure, but no "gap" that I can think of.

"An emergent property of DNA is its ability to store and transmit genetic information, which arises from the complex structure of the double helix, allowing for the replication and expression of genes, a property that cannot be attributed to individual nucleotides alone; essentially, the complex interactions between nucleotides within the DNA molecule create the capacity to code for life's characteristics, which is not present in the individual building blocks."--- https://www.google.com/search?q=DNA...zMzg2ajBqMTWoAgmwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Pinball1970]

And we concede a causal gap between the components and the whole by calling its holistically-generated properties "emergent." Does not emergent mean precisely NOT causally reducible to any of its components?

Do you mean we do not know what all of our genome does?
That is correct, it is a lengthy series of base pairs distributed between chromosomes.

There are parts that make things and all the stuff in-between. If by reductionist you mean, what do all of the base pair sequences do?
Then yes than is an ongoing area of research.

They have worked out an awful lot of stuff so far though.

Get out a copy of "Gene V, Vi etc Lewin" out of the library. Molecular biology is still pretty new, a few decades.
It is a big book and tell us how the mysterious dark material inside the cell discovered in the 50s builds our bodies.

 

[Pinball1970]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better

The physicists drive this today. Newton works totally fine regarding gravity we can relate to. Newtonian physics describes our world perfectly. The view that Einstein replaced Newton shows a lack of understanding of the domain and scope by a layman.
Newton is taught at A level and beyond for a reason, how does our universe work? Our universe is the moon, Sun and other celestial bodies. It is also canon balls, other projectiles important in Newton's time and applied mechanics today.
Light is interesting too, what the hell is it? Newton reduced "white light" to it's components. He had limited kit however.

In terms of what stuff is made of?

Physics guys are keeping kings and they are still reducing. The Sm does not have a DM particle.

An active area of research.

I will put a few links in

 

[Pinball1970]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better

The physicists drive this today. Newton works totally fine regarding gravity we can relate to. Newtonian physics describes our world perfectly. The view that Einstein replaced Newton shows a lack of understanding of the domain and scope by a layman.
Newton is taught at A level and beyond for a reason, how does our universe work? Our universe is the moon, Sun and other celestial bodies. It is also canon balls, other projectiles important in Newton's time and applied mechanics today.
Light is interesting too, what the hell is it? Newton reduced "white light" to it's components. He had limited kit however.

In terms of what stuff is made of?

Physics guys are keeping kings and they are still reducing. The Sm does not have a DM particle.

An active area of research.

I will put a few links in

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better. Which is essentially like extracting all the ingredients from a delicious homemade stew in order to understand it better. There is a distinctive character and "whatness" in the whole that is missed out on in the reductive analyses of its discrete parts. The question isn't just DO we understand it better. The question becomes WHAT is really understood about it in the end.

Good thread!

Your posts have lots of great content sometimes . For the fringe stuff? Just report it rather than stick in a "therefore."
Just my angle MR.
Peace dude

 

[exchemist]

"An emergent property of DNA is its ability to store and transmit genetic information, which arises from the complex structure of the double helix, allowing for the replication and expression of genes, a property that cannot be attributed to individual nucleotides alone; essentially, the complex interactions between nucleotides within the DNA molecule create the capacity to code for life's characteristics, which is not present in the individual building blocks."--- https://www.google.com/search?q=DNA...zMzg2ajBqMTWoAgmwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Sure. Just as one molecule cannot be said to have a temperature. A statistical distribution of energy of an ensemble of molecules, however, in aggregate gives rise to a temperature, by a precisely known relationship (the mathematics of statistical thermodynamics). So we know very well how the behaviour of individual molecules, when aggregated, leads to a temperature for the bulk material. There is no "causal gap".

Nor is there in the case of DNA. An individual base is only one "letter" of the genetic code. Obviously one letter cannot constitute a code. But an aggregate of bases, in a chain, is a different matter, since it attracts molecules to bind to it in a particular sequence, creating a very precisely specified polymer (mRNA) which, in a subsequent step, enables a particular sequence of amino acids to link to form a particular polymer (protein).

I repeat, emergent simply means a property of the aggregate which is absent in the subunits. It does not mean just appearing, without any understanding of how it arises from the subunits.

 

[parmalee]

Science takes everything apart and reduces it down to its most basic components in order to understand it better. Which is essentially like extracting all the ingredients from a delicious homemade stew in order to understand it better. There is a distinctive character and "whatness" in the whole that is missed out on in the reductive analyses of its discrete parts. The question isn't just DO we understand it better. The question becomes WHAT is really understood about it in the end.

I don't think this is particularly the direction you were intending to go, but this trend in pharmacology and plant-based medicine has resulted in a dearth of knowledge on the potential medicinal value of whole plants as opposed to isolates and synthetics.

Consider the opium poppy as an example. It is comprised of some thirty-odd alkaloids, discovered some 150 years back, I think, and most are present only in trace amounts. The ones of most value, or known value, in medicine are morphine, codeine and thebaine. Morphine and codeine have value on their own, while thebaine is the basis for many of the synthetic opioids. Also, heroin is derived from morphine and, in medical contexts, is used in patients with GI sensitivities to morphine, which is a failry high percentage--at least, where it's legal. These alkaloids have been studied extensively, while opium on it's own, despite having been used in medicine or thousands of years prior, is largely ignored. What little "proper" research there is suggests wholly different properties with respect to analgesia, potential side-effects, and even it's addiction or dependence potential. In some instances, these properties may be preferable to those of the isolated alkaloids and synthetics.

Nearly half of all pharmaceuticals are derived or synthesized from plants, and, whether owing to some synergetic effect of both active and inactive compounds or the original isolate being radically different from whatever is synthesized from it, the properties of the plant are simply different. Sometimes better, sometimes not, but the point being that these properties are under-researched. Personally, I prefer to ephedra viridis, or Mormon tea, over pseudoephedrine--I'm hyper-active and have chronic insomnia and I don't really need more of that shit in my life. Mormon tea doesn't freak me out like pseudoephedrine. Used to be able to buy, but now, of course, it's banned; fortunately, it grows like a weed in the southwest US.

 

[exchemist]

I don't think this is particularly the direction you were intending to go, but this trend in pharmacology and plant-based medicine has resulted in a dearth of knowledge on the potential medicinal value of whole plants as opposed to isolates and synthetics.

Consider the opium poppy as an example. It is comprised of some thirty-odd alkaloids, discovered some 150 years back, I think, and most are present only in trace amounts. The ones of most value, or known value, in medicine are morphine, codeine and thebaine. Morphine and codeine have value on their own, while thebaine is the basis for many of the synthetic opioids. Also, heroin is derived from morphine and, in medical contexts, is used in patients with GI sensitivities to morphine, which is a failry high percentage--at least, where it's legal. These alkaloids have been studied extensively, while opium on it's own, despite having been used in medicine or thousands of years prior, is largely ignored. What little "proper" research there is suggests wholly different properties with respect to analgesia, potential side-effects, and even it's addiction or dependence potential. In some instances, these properties may be preferable to those of the isolated alkaloids and synthetics.

Nearly half of all pharmaceuticals are derived or synthesized from plants, and, whether owing to some synergetic effect of both active and inactive compounds or the original isolate being radically different from whatever is synthesized from it, the properties of the plant are simply different. Sometimes better, sometimes not, but the point being that these properties are under-researched. Personally, I prefer to ephedra viridis, or Mormon tea, over pseudoephedrine--I'm hyper-active and have chronic insomnia and I don't really need more of that shit in my life. Mormon tea doesn't freak me out like pseudoephedrine. Used to be able to buy, but now, of course, it's banned; fortunately, it grows like a weed in the southwest US.

Ah but this is an example of something a bit different from what MR was contending in the OP. What you describe is a case of incomplete scientific understanding. That's common enough. You yourself say that the reasons why the properties of the whole plant extract are different is under-researched. That indicates that it could be researched by the methods of science and an understanding could thereby be achieved. Whereas MR is, if I understand him correctly, contending that the processes of science intrinsically miss something of the "whatness" of things, in general.

I can offer another example of an area in which science has not got the answers so far. In medicine, one developing field is the tailoring of medicines to individuals. It has been found that the responses to medicines can vary quite widely from one person to another. Sometimes it correlates with something simple though insufficiently recognised, like sexual differences. In other cases it is from person to person without an obvious correlating factor. But the answers are being sought by applying the methods of science. There is no suggestion that there is something there that is not amenable to being uncovered by science.

 

[Magical Realist]

I repeat, emergent simply means a property of the aggregate which is absent in the subunits. It does not mean just appearing, without any understanding of how it arises from the subunits.

You seem to be saying that an emergent property can be traced to the combined behavior/properties of its subunits. I'm saying it is more than that, at least in the case of strong emergence. It is more than the mere sum of the parts. My favorite example is salt. The two atomic elements of chlorine and sodium, which in themselves are highly reactive and dangerous, combine to create common table salt. The properties of salt, its distinctive taste, solubility in water, ability to conduct electricity when in solution, and crystal structure, are not present in its two elements either discretely nor in summation. They are entirely new and surprising properties. Do we really understand how this happens? No.. We may certainly say that they are caused by the combination of chlorine and sodium. But we do not understand how salt's emergent properties rationally or necessarily follow, in a lawlike fashion, from this reaction,. That's why I said in the op that this becomes a matter of how we ultimately define understanding something. Is it enough to say they are just the magical combination of their components, without knowing HOW that combination results in the given properties? Or is there more to be discovered?