To highlight how the reduction is not appropriate for studying certain phenomena, consider the example of a hammer could be analyzed at the molecular level of the material comprising the handle or the head of the hammer, but do not add nothing compared to the properties of the hammer as such. Indeed, these properties are somewhat independent of the fact that the handle is made of wood or plastic.
When, at a higher level, there are properties that can not be explained by reductionist analysis, then we say that these properties emerge from the lower levels, or rather, they emerge from ' organization that is created between the the most elementary components of the system.
A typical reductionist objections against emergentism is that when there is an emergent event, it is not produced anything new. That claim, however, is only half true. On closer inspection, it is true that it is not produced anything new: a hammer is made of the same elements they are made of its isolated components, neck and head. Yet something new, in fact it is produced: the interaction between the neck and head. Neither the wooden handle by itself, nor the head of the hammer can do (effectively) the typical functions of the hammer. But when we combine them together. "Emerging" properties of the tool. It is this interaction generated anew the essential property of any system "emerged" from the molecular level to higher levels. The emergency occurs thanks to new relationships (interactions) established between components not previously connected. Indeed, one of the fundamental reasons which must be the failure of reductionism is the fact they failed to consider the importance of such connections (1).(1) E. Mayr, The uniqueness of biology, Cambridge University Press 2005 (2004), p. 79.
0 comments:
Post a Comment