I understand, I just don’t get why you object to reductionism as exemplified by the second definition. It seems to me a fairly reasonable philosophical position.
I object to that terminology because it overloads a useful term which is used for something else without having a good excuse for doing so. Call the idea that invisible pixies push atoms around “irreducibility”—or something else—anything!
IMO, “Reductionism” and “Holism” should be reserved for the Hofstadter-favoured sense of those words—or you have a terminological mess:
I understand, I just don’t get why you object to reductionism as exemplified by the second definition. It seems to me a fairly reasonable philosophical position.
I object to that terminology because it overloads a useful term which is used for something else without having a good excuse for doing so. Call the idea that invisible pixies push atoms around “irreducibility”—or something else—anything!
IMO, “Reductionism” and “Holism” should be reserved for the Hofstadter-favoured sense of those words—or you have a terminological mess:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l76/orestesmantra/MU.jpg
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.