Since the introduction of reductionism, science has greatly changed. Reductionism has captured the attention of many scientists, as well as philosophers of science for the reason that it seeks to accomplish such a large goal. However, we are posed with the question of whether or not reductionism is capable of sufficing enough information for all scientific inquiry. I will argue that biology is not capable of effectively being reduced to physics and or chemistry mainly because it cannot provide the sufficient quantities of information needed, mainly due to issues caused by incommensurability due to varying scientific meanings (which will be discussed with reference to Kuhn and Feyerabend) as well as issues with overall understanding of scientific …show more content…
Kuhn’s example of paradigm changes would immediately refute Carnap’s argument. If scientists are in different paradigms, they do not recognize certain scientific terminology to have the same meaning in nature. (Kuhn 1962) Although Kuhn’s argument is not directed at reductionism, we can use his argument to say that Carnap’s defense for reductionism is not a sufficient defense and can easily be refuted. Feyerabend also criticized the reductionist view with an argument that would have been similar to Kuhn’s. He stated similarly that universal language is an issue due to similar terms with different meanings; this would immediately refute any chance we have of narrowing all sciences down to one universal language. (Feyerabend 1962) We cannot have a universal language because scientists cannot at all agree on mutual definitions, likely because they are in two different paradigms and have different understandings of the terminology. Deriving theories from biology and reducing them into chemistry/physics would make it impossible to translate the theories into chemical or physical language properly. This is because of the biological terms seeming similar to chemical/physical terms yet meaning something different – none of the information that would be reduced would be reduced as accurate biological information as it would have its meanings and theories misinterpreted due to the collision of terms in sciences. In other words, the definition of something chemical related may not have the same meaning when defining it in physical or biological terms. This shows that biology is not comparable to physics and chemistry as their definitions, languages, etc. do not match up. Such an overlap would cause the field of sciences to become virtually dysfunctional because nothing would be clear – there would be constant confusion,
To begin with, the authors, Larry Gonick and Craig Criddle, as I alluded to earlier, have written this book to consist of varying subjects and topics all underneath the umbrella that is chemistry. The twelve key subjects covered are hidden ingredients (basically properties and elements), matter becoming electric and their relation to electrons, togetherness and atomic structure, chemical reactions, heat of reaction, matter in a state (solid, liquid, gas) , solutions, reaction rate and equilibrium, acid basics, chemical thermodynamics, electrochemistry, organic chemistry, and using logarithms. Overall each subject is covered equally in depth and some subjects build upon each other while some don’t. There isn’t a specific author’s purpose rather than to educate the reader. However the subjects that constantly return and are tied in with each chapter are the history of chemistry and how chemical principles were discovered. These repeating subjects also show us applications of chemistry in the real world and the importance of chemistry in our lives. In general the book trudges through subjects...
Chalmers, David John, comp. Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.
Russell , Bertrand. ‘On Denoting’ Mind, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 56. (Oct., 1905), pp. 479-493.
Lowe, E.J. 2007, An introduction to the philosophy of mind, United States of America, New York, Cambridge University Press. pg 146.
McGinn, Colin (1996) The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., Oxford UP.
Genetics relies on chemistry to explain phenomena related to the field. The structure of DNA relies on chemistry. In fact, when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they did so by building models based on the laws of chemistry. Chemistry also relates heavily to the structure and function of one of the main products of DNA: protein.
Passer, M., Smith, R., Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., & Vliek, M. (2009). Psychology; Science of Mind and Behaviour. (European Edition). New York.
(2) Kitcher, Philip, and Wesley C. Salmon, eds. Scientific Explanation. Vol. 13, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
Reductionism believes that the approach to understanding the nature of complex things is by reducing them to the interactions of their parts. The battle between the philosophy
Somerville, John. The Strange Case of Modern Psychology. The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 31. October 1934. pp. 571-577.
This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher mental processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
To control the rates of chemical reactions is imperative to the continued existence of our species. Controlled chemical reactions allow us to move forward in society, constantly. We find new ways to provide light and heat our homes, cook our food, and pursue in crafts that benefit our society. There are, however, just as there are advantages, disadvantages to the efficiency of controlling the rate of reactions, which in some cases can be fatal to our scientific development and progression. The growth of humankind necessitates that we must be able to control the rate of chemical reactions.
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, has said that “the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going” (Horgan 27).2 Noted evolutionary astronomer Frederick Hoyle has described the chances of life having evolved from nonlife to be about as likely as the chances that “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (Johnson 106). Why do respected scientists doubt what textbooks teach as fact? It would appear that these scientists know something that current theories describing the origin of life fail to explain. While current theories describe scenarios in which genetic material such as RNA becomes entrapped in a protective cell membrane as a likely recipe for the formation of life, they generally do not focus on the difficulties of forming and concentrating all of these components in the first place.3 To clarify, current theories suffer from what I call the “cookbook mentality.