Re: Corporations

[ravi <gadfly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David B. Shemano wrote:
>
> I have been accused of being "reductionist."  According to
> dictionary.com, reductionsist means:
> <...>
> Based upon that definition, I accept the label.  It is better than
> being "wrong."
>
> What really are we fighting about?
>

i called your definition (of corporations) reductionist. i am not
fighting with you. i used the term in a neutral sense.

that said, there are multiple arguments against reductionism. the
foundational ones are too detailed to hash out here. there is also the
argument against reductionism that in its use, in complex fields, there
is a tendency to oversimplify a problem, in order to solve it.
reductionism can lead to wrong and dangerous conclusions.

of course the onus to refute your argument (either on eco-theoretical
ground, or methodological ground as a critique of reductionism) lies, to
a large extent, on your detractors.


> "An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities,
> phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set: 'for the last 400
> years science has advanced by reductionism... The idea is that you
> could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and
> smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain
> the whole'  (John Holland)."


this is an extremely (and wilfully/intentionally) naive definition.
science rarely proceeded along this clean reductionist process. at best,
the context of justification has at times tended to honour reductionism.
may i suggest kline's works on the history of mathematics (math being
the language of science) and of course feyerabend's "expose" and defense
of methodoligcal anarchism?

        --ravi