It's not necessarily. Reduction of obscure diction and complex sentence structure can be beneficial in helping others to understand, but it can also reduce our ability to express more complex and specific ideas. If IQfy teaches you nothing else it should be that absolutism is for pseuds.
You are confusing of reduction of the mere format in which the theory is expressed in with the reduction of the content (that is, reductionism proper).
That isn't a valid example of reductionism, though.
>Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact 'generate' anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates ... why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict 'history' – i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the 'system' involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, 'purposeful' activity.
What is this from? Sounds very familiar.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Things aren't whatever you say they are or aren't just because you say so.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Peter Corning apparently. I just found it on the Wikipedia article on emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Because the decision on what we get rid of is an arbitrary product of psychological satisfaction, and thus gets in the way of accurately describing the world, assuming thaat this is the goal here.
You are confusing of reduction of the mere format in which the theory is expressed in with the reduction of the content (that is, reductionism proper).
>Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact 'generate' anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates ... why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict 'history' – i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the 'system' involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, 'purposeful' activity.
In reducing a system in order to understand it, you are making a strong assumption that whatever you are cutting away isn’t important for understanding. You can reduce a system but the reduced system may be very different from the original system
If you mean rhetorically, presenting your opponent's opinion in a simplistic way is being reductive, which is usually dishonest.
Example: what do you mean, I should read literature? All books are just the same letters I already know printed in different orders, why would I read any of that?
If you mean, being ontologically reductionist, it tends to mean being materialistic, which people who are not materialistic tend to dislike.
Because any abstraction necessarily entails a loss of complexity and a loss of information. Reductionism leads ultimately to something sterile and devoid of real meaning.
Watch Rising of the Shield Hero anime. In Season 1, the Shield Hero has to clean up the mess caused by the other 3 heroes (Spear, Sword, and Bow) attempts to do good in their reductive vision of the world. The Spear Hero tried to solve the hunger problems of a village, but the magic seed he gave them turned out to be evil and killed many of the villagers. The Sword Hero killed a powerful dragon but left its rotting corpse to infect a nearby village. The Bow Hero killed an oppressive leadership but left its people displaced. Because of their reductive POV they couldn't see the world as having more complex, emergent causes and effects.
it's not. reduction is necessary for abstraction, and we can only apprehend the world through abstraction.
This is reduction as a psychological method for generating concepts, which is irrelivant to reductionism.
Cope, abstraction is how murder, torture, oppression and other terrible things get justified and done.
because it reduces. that's, like, negative. negative is bad. we should increase. increase is positive. positive good.
You got it boss, duh-hoy!
It's not necessarily. Reduction of obscure diction and complex sentence structure can be beneficial in helping others to understand, but it can also reduce our ability to express more complex and specific ideas. If IQfy teaches you nothing else it should be that absolutism is for pseuds.
You are confusing of reduction of the mere format in which the theory is expressed in with the reduction of the content (that is, reductionism proper).
I was just giving an example and regretably I didn't say as much.
That isn't a valid example of reductionism, though.
What is this from? Sounds very familiar.
Things aren't whatever you say they are or aren't just because you say so.
Peter Corning apparently. I just found it on the Wikipedia article on emergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Because the decision on what we get rid of is an arbitrary product of psychological satisfaction, and thus gets in the way of accurately describing the world, assuming thaat this is the goal here.
A genius desires simplicity, an idiot needless convolution.
see
You make the same error in vocabulary.
"Sneed"
>Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact 'generate' anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates ... why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict 'history' – i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the 'system' involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, 'purposeful' activity.
In reducing a system in order to understand it, you are making a strong assumption that whatever you are cutting away isn’t important for understanding. You can reduce a system but the reduced system may be very different from the original system
If you mean rhetorically, presenting your opponent's opinion in a simplistic way is being reductive, which is usually dishonest.
Example: what do you mean, I should read literature? All books are just the same letters I already know printed in different orders, why would I read any of that?
If you mean, being ontologically reductionist, it tends to mean being materialistic, which people who are not materialistic tend to dislike.
because it is
Because any abstraction necessarily entails a loss of complexity and a loss of information. Reductionism leads ultimately to something sterile and devoid of real meaning.
Watch Rising of the Shield Hero anime. In Season 1, the Shield Hero has to clean up the mess caused by the other 3 heroes (Spear, Sword, and Bow) attempts to do good in their reductive vision of the world. The Spear Hero tried to solve the hunger problems of a village, but the magic seed he gave them turned out to be evil and killed many of the villagers. The Sword Hero killed a powerful dragon but left its rotting corpse to infect a nearby village. The Bow Hero killed an oppressive leadership but left its people displaced. Because of their reductive POV they couldn't see the world as having more complex, emergent causes and effects.