World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article


Article Id: WHEBN0005589044
Reproduction Date:

Title: Antireductionism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Holism, List of schools of philosophy, Philosophy of science, Scientific imperialism, Systems ecology
Collection: Holism, Philosophy of Science
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia


Antireductionism is a philosophical position that stands in contrast to reductionism by advocating that not all properties of a system can be explained in terms of its constituent parts and their interactions. An extreme form of antireductionism is holism, that understanding a system can be done only as a whole. One form of antireductionism (epistemological) holds that we simply are not capable of understanding systems at the level of their most basic constituents, and so the program of reductionism must fail. The other kind of antireductionism (ontological) holds that such a complete explanation in terms of basic constituents is not possible even in principle for some systems.[1] The ontological view is supported by some scientists as well.[2]

Although breaking complex phenomena into parts is a key method in science, there are those complex phenomena (e.g. in psychology, sociology, ecology) where some resistance to or rebellion against this approach arises, primarily due to its perceived shortcomings. Antireductionism also arises in academic fields such as history, economics, anthropology, medicine, and biology as dissatisfaction with attempts to explain complex phenomena using simplistic, ill-fitting models, which do not provide much insight.

An example of antireductionism in psychology is Davidson's proposed ontology of what he calls 'events' and its use "to provide an antireductionist answer to the mind/matter debate ...[and to show that]...the impossibility of intertranslating the two idioms by means of psychophysical laws blocks any analytically reductive relation between...the mental and the physical."[3]

Karl Popper was a famous proponent of antireductionism. In his book Of clouds and clocks, Popper classified phenomena into two types: "clock" phenomena with a mechanical basis and "cloud" phenomena which are indivisible and depend upon emergence for explanation.[4]

For example, Popper thought that a materialist explanation of consciousness is not possible.[5] The view of reductionists about consciousness is explained by Velmans:[6]

"Most reductionists accept that consciousness seems to be different from brain states (or functions) but claim that science will discover it to be nothing more than a state or function of the brain. In short, they mostly accept that brains states and conscious states are conceivably different, but deny that they are actually different (in the universe we happen to inhabit)."
—Max Velmans; Understanding consciousness", Note 26, page 262

Velmans himself is not in agreement with this reductionist stance. Opposition to this mind = brain reductionism is found in many authors.[7][8][9] An often mentioned issue is that science cannot explain the hard problem of consciousness, the subjective feelings called qualia. However, a more telling objection is that science is not a self-contained entity, because the theories it uses are creations of the human mind, not inevitable results of experiment and observation, and the criteria for adoption of a particular theory are not definitive in selecting between alternatives, but require subjective input.[10][11][12] Even the claim that science is based upon testability of its theories has been met with qualifications.[13][14]

According to Alex Rosenberg and David Kaplan, the conflict between physicalism and antireductionism can be resolved, that "both reductionists and antireductionists accept that given our cognitive interests and limitations, non-molecular explanations may not be improved, corrected or grounded in molecular ones."[15] However, others find that the conflict between reductionism and antireductionism is "one of the central problems in the philosophy of updated version of the old mind-body problem: how levels of theories in the behavioral and brain sciences relate to one another. Many contemporary philosophers of mind believe that cognitive-psychological theories are not reducible to neurological theories...most nonreductive physicalists prefer the idea of a one-way dependence of the mental on the physical."[16]

See also


  1. ^ Thomas Nagel (1998). "Reductionism and antireductionism" (PDF). The Limits of Reductionism in Biology: Novartis Foundation Symposium 213: 3–10. 
  2. ^ For example, see  
  3. ^ Quote is from the blurb for Donald Davidson (2002). Essays on Actions and Events (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.  
  4. ^ Karl Raimund Popper (1966). Of Clouds and Clocks: An Approach to the Problem of Rationality and the Freedom of Man. Washington University.  
  5. ^ Alastair I.M. Rae (October 8, 2013). "Anti-reductionism". Reductionism: A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld Publications.  
  6. ^ Max Velmans (2000). "A new synthesis: Reflexive monism". Understanding consciousness. Psychology Press.  
  7. ^ Evan Thompson (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press.  
  8. ^ Thomas Nagel (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly wrong. Oxford University Press.  
  9. ^ A rather extended discussion is provided in Georg Northoff (2004). Philosophy of the Brain: The Brain Problem (Volume 52 of Advances in Consciousness Research ed.). John Benjamins Publishing.  
  10. ^  
  11. ^ Bird, Alexander (Aug 11, 2011). Edward N. Zalta, ed, ed. "Thomas Kuhn". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition). Despite the possibility of divergence, there is nonetheless widespread agreement on the desirable features of a new puzzle-solution or theory. Kuhn (1977, 321–2) identifies five characteristics that provide the shared basis for a choice of theory: 1. accuracy; 2. consistency (both internal and with other relevant currently accepted theories); 3. scope (its consequences should extend beyond the data it is required to explain); 4. simplicity (organizing otherwise confused and isolated phenomena); 5. fruitfulness (for further research).  Bird's reference is to Thomas S Kuhn (1977). The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (7th ed.). University of Chicago Press.  
  12. ^ Bird, Alexander (Aug 11, 2011). Edward N. Zalta, ed, ed. "§4.1 Methodological Incommensurability". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition). They [such criteria] cannot determine scientific choice. First, which features of a theory satisfy these criteria may be disputable (e.g. does simplicity concern the ontological commitments of a theory or its mathematical form?). Secondly, these criteria are imprecise, and so there is room for disagreement about the degree to which they hold. Thirdly, there can be disagreement about how they are to be weighted relative to one another, especially when they conflict. 
  13. ^ Stephen Thornton (February 5, 2013). Edward N. Zalta, ed. "Karl Popper; §9: Critical evaluation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition). 
  14. ^ Imre Lakatos (1980). "Popper, falsificationism and the 'Duhem-Quine thesis'". In John Worrall, Gregory Currie, eds. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Volume 1: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press. pp. 93 ff.  
  15. ^ Alex Rosenberg,D. M. Kaplan (2005). "How to Reconcile Physicalism and Antireductionism about Biology". Philosophy of Science 72 (1): 43–68.  On-line full text here
  16. ^ Quote from back-cover blurb of John Bickle (1998). Psychoneural reduction: The new wave. MIT Press.  

External links

  • John Bickle, Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave, Bradford Books, March 1998, ISBN 0-262-02432-2.
  • Ingo Brigandt and Alan Love, "Reductionism in Biology", in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • Donald Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events, OUP, 2001, ISBN 0-19-924627-0
  • Alex Rosenberg and D. M. Kaplan "How to reconcile physicalism and antireductionism about biology", Philosophy of Science, Volume 72.1, January 2005, pp. 43–68]
  • Manfred Laubichler and Günter Wagner (2001) "How molecular is molecular developmental biology? A reply to Alex Rosenberg's Reductionism redux: computing the embryo", Biology and Philosophy 16: 53—68
  • Bolender, John (1995) "Is multiple realizability compatible with antireductionism?" The Southern Journal of Philosophy XXXIII: pp. 129–142.
  • Monica Anderson Reductionism Considered Harmful, h+ magazine, 2011
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.