[C] [Wittrs] Re: The elusivensss of reduction

From: J DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:02:20 -0800 (PST)

Bruce,

 Regarding the Philosophy of Chemistry and the relationship between physics and 
chemistry, I wrote:

> > And yet, "reduction" is far more elusive than has been
> (until
> recently) simply taken for granted!

and you asked:

> Why do you think? 

I am firmly of the view that the task of philosophy is not explanation but 
description.  The article to which my original post linked describes the 
various puzzles better than I could.  And it provides useful pointers to 
further reading on the subject, should you be interested.

I certainly see no point in speculation.  At least not as a philosopher.  (And 
I don't pretend to be a scientist.)

I'll say this much: if we take scientific theories as simply providing more or 
less effective means of coping with the world in various specific domains, 
there would be no reason to suppose that one theory should be completely 
reduced to another.  But if we make our goal the creation ("discovery") of the 
one true and complete description of reality, then we require such a reduction. 
 Which is not to say we have any more reason to actually expect it.  

Am I advocating anti-realism?  Pragmatism?  No.  I am pointing out connections 
between different demands we make of science.

Would appreciate your reflections with
> regard to
> brain/mind matter.

Thanks for your interest but with all due respect, there's no way I'd choose to 
get entangled in the present discussion.

JPDeMouy

==========================================

Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

[C] [Wittrs] Re: The elusivensss of reduction

Other related posts: