Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/862943411250352128
3 edited body
source | link

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with the general principles of the scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research. This is not to say we shouldn't seek to explain relations among phenomena -- only that it should be preceded by a thorough understanding of individual parts.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with the general principles of scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research. This is not to say we shouldn't seek to explain relations among phenomena -- only that it should be preceded by a thorough understanding of individual parts.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with general principles of the scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research. This is not to say we shouldn't seek to explain relations among phenomena -- only that it should be preceded by a thorough understanding of individual parts.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?

2 added 158 characters in body
source | link

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with the general principles of scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research. This is not to say we shouldn't seek to explain relations among phenomena -- only that it should be preceded by a thorough understanding of individual parts.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with the general principles of scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with the general principles of scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research. This is not to say we shouldn't seek to explain relations among phenomena -- only that it should be preceded by a thorough understanding of individual parts.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?

1
source | link

Is holism likely incompatible with scientific method?

I've been reading on the holism-reductionism continuum. Reductionism strikes me as compliant with the general principles of scientific approach and method because it seeks to explain complex phenomena by breaking them down into smaller units and building theories bottom up, focusing on specificity and detail. Holism is the opposite and seems to me it could easily serve as a seemingly respectable (who doesn't want to tie it all together in a big "theory of everything"?) curtain for poor, insufficient or downright misleading and sloppy research.

In modern scientific circles, is holism generally regarded as a conduit for pseudoscience?