I’ve just finished reading Michio Kaku‘s “Hyperspace” – it’s a book I’ve had on my shelves for years but didn’t get round to reading (I’ve got LOADS like that – but I’m still convinced I’ll read them ALL eventually!). It’s about multi-dimensional thinking in physics and maths, and I read it because of a dream I had. It’s a fabulous book, which really does make difficult concepts understandable. I highly recommend it.
In the last chapter of the book, Michio tackles the reductionism vs holism issue, because in Physics, apparently, there are two very different groups of adherents to each of these viewpoints. He has an interesting exposition of the more extreme forms of these two groups, referring to the reductionists as “Belligerent science” and holists and “Know-nothing science” – OK, I know, both extremely judgmental and controversial terms but read this paragraph where he describes them –
Belligerent science clubs the opposition with a heavy, rigid view of science tht alienates rather than persuades. Belligerent science seeks to win points in a debate, rather than win over the audience. Instead of appealing to the finer instincts of the lay audience by presenting itself as the defender of enlightened reason and sound experiment, it comes off as a new Spanish Inquisition. Belligerent science is science with a chip on its shoulder. Its scientists accuse the holists of being soft-headed, of getting their physics confused, of throwing pseudoscientific gibberish to cover their ignorance. Thus belligerent science may be winning the individual battles, but it is ultimately losing the war. In every one-to-one skirmish, belligerent science may trounce the opposition by parading out mountains of data and learned PhDs. However, in the long run arrogance and conceit may eventually backfire by alienating the very audience that it is trying to persuade.
Know-nothing science goes to the opposite extreme, rejecting experiment and embracing whatever faddish philosophy happens to come along. Know-nothing science sees unpleasant facts as mere details, and the overall philosophy as everything. If the facts do not seem to fit the philosophy then obviously something is wrong with the facts. Know-nothing science comes in with a preformed agenda, based on personal fulfillment rather than objective observation, and tries to fit in the science as an afterthought.
I recognise these attitudes clearly. I have been on the receiving end of classic “belligerent science” communications – some of it so offensive, I just delete it straight after reading it (and wish I’d never read it in the first place!) “Belligerent scientists” clearly don’t like homeopathy! In fact, the tone of some of the comments I have received to posts I put up concerning homeopathy, led me to create a “Commenting policy” which you can read at the bottom of the right hand sidebar of this blog. On the other hand, I’ve read plenty of comments from the other extreme end of this axis. I find this latter group to be a lot nicer than the belligerent crowd I must say, but often not any easier to have a discussion with.
I confess to having a strong affiliation to holistic perspectives on the world, but science has always been a fascination for me and it thrills me to understand how things work so I see a real value in reductionist thinking too.
How to reconcile these two viewpoints? Well, you could read Kaku’s final chapter, but essentially he argues for taking a higher perspective and seeing that both methods are appropriate in different circumstances.
One contemporary philosopher who has considered this issue is Mary Midgely.
She argues against reductionism or the attempt to impose any one approach to understanding the world as the only right way to see things. She suggests that there are “many maps, many windows” on reality and argues that “we need scientific pluralism – the recognition that there are many independent forms and sources of knowledge – rather than reductivism, the conviction that one fundamental form underlies them all and settles everything” and that it is helpful to think about the world as “a huge aquarium. We cannot see it as a whole from above, so we peer in at it through a number of small windows … We can eventually make quite a lot of sense of this habitat if we patiently put together the data from different angles. but if we insist that our own window is the only one worth looking through, we shall not get very far”
I like that. I like it a lot.
Here’s to an understanding of the value of different viewpoints, and different methods in diverse circumstances. I think we could advance the lot of humankind so much more if we attempted to engage with, and understand, each other, rather than bashing each other about the heads! In particular, less arrogance and conceit would be good!
