Eywa Exists

[auroraglacialis]

On Holism, Gaia and Reductionism.... (p2)

Originally Posted by Clarke

Re: reductionism, I've got a really simple example here: pure water being wet. [...]

I do not say it does not work. Obviously it works - the world is beeing killed because it works, because by using it, people could invent pesticides and nuclear bombs. Also obviously if you want to study the parts of something, yes, you have to look at the parts, though the use of the words "tear apart" has to me the connotation of forceful discovery. This is not mere semantics - its not merely about twisting your mind now to use a different word - the language used is however an expression of how you think about the world - as something that has to be ripped apart to look inside. Obviously that is not your fault really - this attitude is the one our culture operates on and our language is deeply influenced by it. This is why Goethe used the word "Mitwelt" instead of "Umwelt" to express that we are "with the world" and not "surrounded by the world". Today we use the second word and say that we are surrounded by our environment. Again, this is not "just language" - language is an expression of how we think.
Back to your example - to learn about water, you can look at these electromagnetic effects for sure, the tiny bits, the little ones. You can learn about water in another way too though - you can describe its properties and behaviour without using electromagnetics. Of course you would miss some things. This is why Goethe - and I agree there - said that materialistic and reductionist science is supposed to be a part of natural science - the most crude tool we have. It breaks apart things into bits and pieces and then looks at the pieces. What is important though, and often forgotten is that it was not these bits that we were interested in the first place, but that we started looking at the thing that was originally whole. So holistic thinking then, or holistic science means that one looks at the whole again and keeps the whole of it in mind. The information one gets by the little bits may contribute to it, but they are not all there is. modern science has turned natural science into only that tool, it is all about reductionist, tearing-apart brute force discovery (and application) and dropped the other part that originally were part of natural philosophy (or natural science as we would call it today). It does not mean one has to "believe in a sentient Gaia" or something, but it means that one should consider things that we would call philosophy more.
In the model of university studies in Germany up to fairly recently it was possible and students were encouraged to participate in many fields. This follows an ideal of a science that goes beyond a single field. Scientists used to be not just biologists, but also were interested in history, anthropology, palaeontology and maybe astronomy. They might also take a look at philosophy or linguistics. Later on, and in the US earlier on, this disappeared and was replaced by an increasing specialization. Again I think this "works" - people spend all their time studying just one field and become "better" in it. But better to what end - to me it seems the target is not anymore to gain knowledge, but to find application and means to manipulate the world. It is not about exploring but about controlling. And this is why I think a more holistic approach to science is urgently needed, because the way science and technology works now is leading to devastation.

Re: holinism, what does it gain? [...] and holistic philosophy doesn't seem to say anything other than "Leave it alone," with no reasoning behind why that would be beneficial. What is the point of holistic thinking, when reductionism will, eventually, produce a solution?

I think holistic science tells us a lot about "it" - about the world, about global events and processes. And really to leave it alone may in some times be a better strategy than to mess with it without knowing enough. But back to Goethe - he said that both types of science have to work together if things are to go in a good way.
And just as a final remark - the statement that "reductionism will, eventually, produce a solution" is a bold claim - one that I cannot refute I guess because you put it into the (distant?) future. But that was one of my main points in the whole discourse here, that this kind of thinking is damaging - that to use the future as a foundation for actions in the present makes no sense. Its like building a house upside down, hoping or claiming that once we are finished, certainly we will find a way to build its foundations into the thin air.

Sadly, this post was again off topic largely, I tried to return to the topic with previous posts, but I guess the views expressed by searching for "Eywa on Earth" are too controversial to just leave it at that topic