Talk:Antireductionism

Philosophy: Epistemology / Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

what does it mean?

is this a neologism for being a scientific reactionary? if so, just say that. --Rocksanddirt 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This means a multiplicity of "isms" without necessity........ confer Ockham, Wittgenstein, etc. etc.

W. Paul Tabaka, Los Angeles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.106.46 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV bias

The article is written from a standpoint of antireductionism, for instance claiming that reductionism, or quantitative approaches, are not fruitful in ecology without a citation. The article needs to present antireductionism without endorsing it. And also note that antireductionism does not necessarily mean the abandonment of science or quantitative approaches - the fields of emergence and systems biology attest to this. Fences and windows (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the suggestion of a merge with holism. There does not seem to be enough here separate from holism to justify a spin-off article. Moreschi (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my POV, I'm seeing the opposite bias. Politically loaded terms such as 'reactionary' are used. The article reads as implied that a proper scientific approach is reduction & anti that is opposed to clear headed scientific thinking. Perhaps this was a reaction in response to the above fore-mentioned bias. I am therefore, providing the opposing view. A balanced & un-prejudiced POV has not been reached in this article--it smells of some moldy offspring of a religious war waged in some other context.--50.184.127.45 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)J October 2016[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

Brews, a lot of the style here doesn't work, like saying "an example of ..." that is conversational verging on OR/SYNTH. I can find some time later on in the week to go through it but you know the objections from previous articles. Much easier if the primary edit avoids a conversational style which is appropriate to a lecture but not to wikipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on Davidson is not my contribution, although I did try to make sense out of it. Perhaps you could be specific about other stylistic occurrences you would like changed? Brews ohare (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through it and make some edits as soon as I get a spare hour - suspending agreement until I can do that ----Snowded ^TALK 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antireductionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

include criticism: [...] (extra criticism)

Antireductionism is an impossibility because even the supernatural (if it exists), is part of the system we want to describe.
Antireductionism is an impossibility because the supernatural not only isn't reachable and teachable, but also it cannot be scientifically hypothesized, because it is not the result of a logically rigorous procedurality (complicated procedures) based on mathematical or allomathematical (allo-/different; mathematical system based on a different axiomatic list or algorithm or hybrid) axiomaticity (axioms which obey logical rules and are able to produce substantiality/existence (not all possible mathematical systems are in themselves a form of some other physics; many mathematical systems [I include different mathematical systems; for example ones of experimental axiomatics] can describe physics with different operations and formulas, but not necessarily meet the criteria of self-causation/physicality/being ontological Turing machines (being their own axiomatics, software and hardware, all of the same mathematical nature, and not merely calculators, but spatiotemporal/spacetime generators + self-caused due to their foundational logic [logicogony: any logical physics based on its own allomathematics which is describable in common mathematics, necessarily self-exists due to its mathematical correctness].

It doesn't matter that we can describe the universe according to common mathematics. I most probably doesn't have the common-mathematics axiomatics, because the universe wasn't created as a calculational system; the universe and it's own mathematics have to meet the criteria of self-causation of the ontological Turing machine, and ways to deal with the problems of axiomaticity/axiomatics (incompleteness, inconsistency and incalculability [per system one of these problems can be avoided, but by no means all of them]). Physical axiomatics = axiomatic foundations, of any (even different) possible universe, need particular workarounds in order they handle without to cancel the problems of axiomaticity. The uncertainty principle, entropy (even the fact that the universe expands by introducing more spacetime, is a form of ontological/wavefunctional entropy) can be viewed as ontoaxiomatic workarounds (ontoaxiomatics = axiomatic rules related to physical systems = ontologically possible; still mathematical).

Unmathematical cosmoi/worlds and realities are totally impossible; because without logical foundations, there is no identity/no "self", even impersonal characteristics for an object/system. Thus the supernatural cannot exist. It is an impossibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8AB8:3F00:C033:18DC:697F:2F46 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]