Biology, Mathematics, and Reductionism (The limitations of science)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, July 09, 2009, 17:29 (5614 days ago)
I just interviewed with a professor who I might work with for my master's dissertation. The project is in an interdisciplinary group of mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, and consists of an online "social media" type site for biologists. What it will do is allow all the various individual specialists within biochemistry to compile ALL of their collected information. - The grand scope of the project is to move cell biology to that of studying the emergent properties of biological systems, but the first step is to get this information collected and properly situated so that these non-math types can speak in their language while allowing the mathematicians and computer scientists to build the model. - This impacts very directly what we've been talking about in terms of Adler, and the study of systems at large. I was aware of this research but I wanted to bring it up here after I got a little more acquainted with the problem domain. - I'm very interested in throwing my hat into this ring. Reductionism has its place but at some point you need to start exploring the system as a whole--consciousness has its roots in neurons, but what is the interplay that causes it? Already, if you want to know something about cognition, you talk to an AI specialist before a neuroscientist. - There is precious little mathematics devised to study emergent systems, and that makes the prospects of this research monumental as any discovery would be at the ground floor. - Needless to say I'm energized by the prospects...
Biology, Mathematics, and Reductionism
by David Turell , Thursday, July 09, 2009, 22:17 (5614 days ago) @ xeno6696
Needless to say I'm energized by the prospects... - I am extremely impressed by your approach to your education with the intent of becoming an educator, and I assume that to be a professor in a college or university. I was on a path to be an academic in medicine. I love teaching and did it later clinically at Baylor C. Med., but I could not stand the politics and the endless debates that bugged my boss while I worked with him. I also loved talking with patients so I ended up in private practice, and carefully taught my patients to understand their problems. - I truly admire the planning you have done. You will be a great teacher. But I will still debate you tooth and nail when I disagree.
Biology, Mathematics, and Reductionism
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, July 09, 2009, 22:45 (5614 days ago) @ David Turell
Needless to say I'm energized by the prospects... > > I am extremely impressed by your approach to your education with the intent of becoming an educator, and I assume that to be a professor in a college or university. I was on a path to be an academic in medicine. I love teaching and did it later clinically at Baylor C. Med., but I could not stand the politics and the endless debates that bugged my boss while I worked with him. I also loved talking with patients so I ended up in private practice, and carefully taught my patients to understand their problems. > > I truly admire the planning you have done. You will be a great teacher. But I will still debate you tooth and nail when I disagree. - No growth can EVER come without conflict, be that of ideas, physical prowess... or anything else worth doing for that matter. I welcome such challenges with open arms--already I've been pushed to reconsider a great many things; most notably your Adler book. Though I'm barely into the fourth chapter his clean argumentation has forced me to figure out what exactly is it I believe and know about humanity's character. That's why my notes are practically nonexistent. I'm still internalizing. - Although I want to temper enthusiasm here... my greater dilemma is that I have realized I'm capable of learning anything. This makes the prospect of choice much more unpalatable. My master's will be in software engineering for the fact that it is the most broad category in computer science... I'll get the tools to pursue anything I want, which right now is focused on a job at NASA. - I might consider a PhD in the future, but that depends on the reality my wife and I face. I want to do great things, but not sacrifice my family in the process. The benefit of computer science is also that you can teach with a Master's here in the States, because we're becoming rare.
Biology, and Reductionism
by David Turell , Saturday, April 11, 2020, 01:06 (1686 days ago) @ xeno6696
It doesn't work with living organisms:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/04/what-is-reductionism.html
"A lot of people seem to think that reductionism is a philosophy. But it most definitely is not. That reductionism is correct is a hypothesis about the properties of nature and it is a hypothesis that has so far been supported by every single experiment that has ever been done. I cannot think of *any scientific fact that is better established than that the properties of the constituents of a system determine how the system works.
"To be sure, taking things apart into pieces to understand how they work is not always a good idea. Even leaving aside that taking apart a living organism typically kills it, the problem is that the connection between the theory for the constituents and the theory for the whole system may just be too complicated to be useful. Indeed, this is more often the case than not, which is why figuring out how an organism works from studying its components is not a fruitful strategy. Studying the living organism as a whole is dramatically more useful, so this is what scientists normally do in practice.
"But if you really want to *understand what an organism does and how it does it, you will look for an explanation on the level of constituents. Like this part sends a signal to that part. This part stores and releases energy. This piece produces something and does this to another piece, and so on. If we want to really understand something, we look for a reductionist theory. Why? Because we know from experience that reductionist theories have more explanatory power. They lead to new predictions rather than just allowing us to reproduce already observed regularities.
"Indeed, the whole history of science until now has been a success story of reductionism. Biology can be reduced to chemistry, chemistry can be reduced to atomic physics, and atoms are made of elementary particles. This is why we have computers today. But, again, this does not mean it is always practical to use a theory for the constituents to describe the composite system."
***
"There are two different types of reductionism. One is called methodological reductionism, the other one theory reductionism. Methodological reductionism is about the properties of the real world. It’s about taking things apart into smaller things and finding that the smaller things determine the behavior of the whole. Theory reductionism on the other hand means that you have levels of theories where the higher – emergent – levels can be derived from the lower – more fundamental – levels."
Comment: Reductionism works in physics and other mechanical sciences but not in biology and does not give us the explanation of how life works or even why it should exist in a material mechanistic universe.