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."