You are confusing me, Tim. Above you seemed to be criticizing the usefulness of the second meaning. Now, you seem to be criticizing the usefulness of the first.
Which do you find useless: the label for a methodology, or the label for a hypothesis about the possibility of hierarchical explanations?
Reductionism and Holism should be the names of strategies for analysing complex sysytems by reducing them to the interactions of their parts—or considering them as high-level entities—respectively.
The other terminology—the kind used in this post—is very bad. People should not overload such useful terminology—unless there really is no other way.
One windmill I try to avoid attacking is the dictionary. I would suggest you spend a few extra syllables and refer to a. as “methodological reductionism” and b. as “philosophical (or ontological) reductionism”. I understand the badness of needless overloading, but I’m not sure I agree that b. is “useless” simply because its validity is obvious to you. Would you also advocate abandoning the term “atheism”?
My problem with philosophical reductionism is I don’t know whether it is a claim about the territory or a convention about maps. If it is a claim about the territory, I certainly remain unconvinced, having not yet glimpsed the territory.
Would you also advocate abandoning the term “atheism”?
That is likely to lead off topic. If the atheists and agnostics could sit down and decide what those terms actually meant, it would certainly help. Meanwhile, call me an adeist.
One can’t just let dictionary authors rule language. When they get scientific things wrong, responsible individuals should put up a fight. Look at what is happening to “epigenesis”—for example. Or “emergence”.
You are confusing me, Tim. Above you seemed to be criticizing the usefulness of the second meaning. Now, you seem to be criticizing the usefulness of the first.
Which do you find useless: the label for a methodology, or the label for a hypothesis about the possibility of hierarchical explanations?
a) - good; b) - not needed. (Ref for a and b: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism)
Reductionism and Holism should be the names of strategies for analysing complex sysytems by reducing them to the interactions of their parts—or considering them as high-level entities—respectively.
The other terminology—the kind used in this post—is very bad. People should not overload such useful terminology—unless there really is no other way.
One windmill I try to avoid attacking is the dictionary. I would suggest you spend a few extra syllables and refer to a. as “methodological reductionism” and b. as “philosophical (or ontological) reductionism”. I understand the badness of needless overloading, but I’m not sure I agree that b. is “useless” simply because its validity is obvious to you. Would you also advocate abandoning the term “atheism”?
My problem with philosophical reductionism is I don’t know whether it is a claim about the territory or a convention about maps. If it is a claim about the territory, I certainly remain unconvinced, having not yet glimpsed the territory.
That is likely to lead off topic. If the atheists and agnostics could sit down and decide what those terms actually meant, it would certainly help. Meanwhile, call me an adeist.
One can’t just let dictionary authors rule language. When they get scientific things wrong, responsible individuals should put up a fight. Look at what is happening to “epigenesis”—for example. Or “emergence”.