Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!qumix!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: it's ONLY reductionism Message-ID: <1600007@iuvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 12:41:00 EDT Article-I.D.: iuvax.1600007 Posted: Wed Oct 3 12:41:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 07:05:47 EDT References: <383@wucs.UUCP> Lines: 16 Nf-ID: #R:wucs:-38300:iuvax:1600007:000:709 Nf-From: iuvax!dsaker Oct 3 11:41:00 1984 [] Paul Torek has made an excellent point here. Indeed, I think people should consider a lot more carefully just what it is they are doing when they are giving a reductionist explanation of something. Indeed, the whole issue of what is an explanation deserves discussion. Good examples come from physics. Given a formula that, as far as we can measure, accurately predicts the value of one observable, say Y, from certain others, say X1 ... Xn, what should we say? Have we explained the phenomenon? Are X1 ... Xn the cause of Y? Do we have nothing more than a formula of pragmatic value? Daryel Akerlind ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker "Your ignorance makes me ill and angry. This savagery must cease."