Why is reductionism bad?

Because you touch yourself at night.

>>8788695

Because a doggo is NOT food!

Reported for animal cruelty, enjoy your prison!

>>8788695
s'not

>>8788695
Because it doesn't convey reality as it should.

For example, an organisation is made up of individual people but each individual person doesn't have the quality that we define specifically as 'organisation' so we must consider the system(aka the organisation) as a whole mass of moving parts, that produce that unique entity, rather than disassembled parts.

Essentially something is more than the sum of it's parts.

Hopefully, I made sense, I'm fairly shit at explaining things.

If something is not reducible, then it's fundamental. There isn't room for lots of things to be fundamental, so it's generally best to assume things are reducible.

>>8788727
>we must consider the system

what are you doing? suing the organization?

cause most of the time when you utilize an organization you utilize individual skills within that organization

organizations only exist to consolidate and secure

>>8788727
If I want to hire someone new, I'm gonna look for a specific skill the guy should be an expert at.

>>8788727
And that conflicts with reductionism how?

>>8788727
We can model macroscopic objects with macroscopic phenomenon which gives a different perspective on it. That doesn't mean we still don't consider it an average of the tiny interactions behind it.

>>8788695

because it doesn't fucking work.

did you know that species are a social construct?

try constructivism.

If reductionism is bad then why do people seem okay with Occam's Razor?

>>8788695

Alright, so in debate, there are a lot of tactics to choose from to disarm your opponent. One of them is to manipulate their emotions so as to cloud their judgement and make it difficult for them to reason correctly. One of the ways you can manipulate their emotions is to accuse them of incomplete thought, suggesting they have overlooked a necessary case to support their argument.

So, most of the time this is actually a just a simple bluff. They don't have to know anything about your argument to be skeptical of it. Anyone can ask questions. Simply suggesting you have missed something important will get green-bellied skeptics to doubt their reasoning and become confused. Once confused and emotional, you will likely make an error in your reasoning, with which your opponent, who again doesn't have to know anything about the subject you are arguing, will point out your error in reasoning and then claim that your entire argument is invalid, even if up until that point you were providing more evidence to support your claims and they were just asking questions.

So, be sure to watch out for these types of debate tactics, and just generally be familiar with debate tactics of all kinds so you can be better prepared for them. The more bluffs you can identify the more people you can learn to ignore and the better your focus will be.

Cheers.

>>8789474

this is a good point. anyone can hypothetically question a million things about anything. not everyone can make positive assertions based on their judgement. and any time anyone does, they're at a large risk, and the only safe things to assert is that which no one would question - aka popsci.

>>8789290

Because reductionism alone cannot allow the observer to fully comprehend the system in question.

Real life example: biology. We know a LOT about metabolic pathways and the mechanisms of nerve cells, but we still don't know exactly why SSRIs work, why people develop metabolic diseases out of nowhere or how to construct a working human brain. All those things are greater than the sum of its parts.

>>8788695
Reduction is good. Qualia is a meme.

>>8789511
Reductionism can be useful, but it's limited. All of the branches of systems science are based around an emergentist paradigm.

>>8789350
Reductionism and ontological parsimony are very different things, anon. Don't just name drop concepts you don't understand, it makes it very obvious that you are a brainlet.