A discussion of whether reductionism can be effective as an attempt to simplify and understand complex phenomena, or whether this approach hinders and limits holistic understanding.
Reductionism is the idea that when interpreting a complex phenomenon, we can break it down to its most basic units and analyze each of them separately to understand the whole. This view has been applied not only in science, but also in philosophy, psychology, and even sociology. The idea that an object is a collection of atoms and an idea is a combination of sensory impressions is a form of reductionism. For example, in physics, when analyzing matter, we try to understand the properties of matter as a whole by breaking it down to the atomic level and understanding the properties of each atom. While this approach can sometimes be very useful, it runs the risk of losing sight of the big picture.
In 20th-century philosophy, two general forms of reductionism were advocated. First, logical realists argued that expressions referring to existing things or events can be defined as directly observable objects or sensory data, and thus any statement of fact is equivalent to a set of empirically verifiable statements. In particular, logical realists argued that the theoretical entities of science can be defined as observable physical things, and that scientific laws are equivalent to combinations of observational reports. For example, the laws of classical physics were derived by synthesizing the results of a large number of experiments, and they allow us to understand the physical world. This approach is very powerful, but not all phenomena can be explained in this way.
Second, advocates of the unification of science have argued that the theoretical entities of a particular science, such as biology or psychology, can be defined in terms of the entities of a more basic science, such as physics. For example, biological phenomena can be explained in terms of physical and chemical processes, and all behaviors and properties of living things are ultimately determined by physical laws. Furthermore, advocates of the unity of science have argued that the laws of those sciences can be explained in terms of the laws of more basic sciences. This view emphasizes the unity and universality of science and is based on the belief that all natural phenomena can be explained by a single, coherent system of laws.
However, there are clear limitations to reductionism. For example, if we analyze the motion of a ball as a physical phenomenon, we might understand that we need to analyze the motion of every single atom. However, such a detailed analysis doesn’t always help us understand the whole. From an evolutionary perspective, the evolution of a population is not understood by looking at the overall increase in diversity, but rather by looking at how each individual changes little by little. This can be useful in that changes at the individual level lead to changes at the population level, but it doesn’t fully account for the complexity of the ecosystem as a whole.
The problem with reductionism is that it tries to extrapolate too much from the micro to the macro world. In particular, reductionist approaches are often insufficient when it comes to understanding social and psychological phenomena. When analyzing individual behavior, it is important to analyze the activity of neurons or changes in hormones, but these micro-level analyses may not fully explain an individual’s behavior in a social context. This is not to say that this argument is completely wrong, but it provides less useful information.
Reductionism is useful in complex phenomena to identify the components that make up the phenomenon and the rules of interaction between them. For example, when analyzing economic phenomena, we try to understand trends in the overall economy by analyzing the behavior of individual consumers or businesses. However, it is not possible to easily predict and perfectly reproduce a particular phenomenon based on its components and interaction rules alone. From a reductionist point of view, the three-body problem should be nothing more than an application of classical mechanics, as it is a simple system consisting of only three objects with mass and gravity. However, it has been proven that no stable general solution exists, and only 16 families of special solutions have been found. The initial arrangements that are not included in the special solutions fall into the realm of chaos theory, which can only be approached by numerical analysis. This is one of the examples that shows that the reductionist approach cannot be applied to all problems.
Increasing the number of objects does not significantly change their components and interaction rules, but the phenomena that result from their interactions become more complex. “In Richard Charles Lewontin’s book Biology as Ideology, the author says that confusing individual aggression with state aggression is not the same thing. “There is a distinction to be made between confusing the rapid hormonal changes an individual feels when he or she is slapped by another with the political agenda of a state to control natural resources, trade corridors, agricultural prices, and the availability of labor, which are the causes of war.” Attempts to explain these micro-level phenomena by scaling them up to the whole can fall into the error of simplifying complex phenomena.
We can also see the limits of reductionism in works of art. Consider a particular work of art, especially a painting: we can break down the material of the plate (the paper on which it is painted), the material of the paint, and the substances that make up the plate and paint into atoms. However, the likelihood of creating an original work of art from just those atoms and the laws of interaction converges to zero. The value of art lies not in its individual components, but in the context and meaning that they create together.
Reductionism may seem plausible at first, but as the examples above show, in reality, this approach does not provide a means of understanding and predicting complex phenomena. Therefore, I do not believe that the arguments of reductionism are correct. For this reason, reductionism can be useful in its own right, but it is insufficient to fully explain complex phenomena. We will need to find other theoretical frameworks that can complement reductionist approaches, balancing micro-analysis with macro-understanding.
