Document Type : Research Paper
Author
PhD in Philosophy, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
The unity or non-unity of science has been one of the most important philosophical issues in the twentieth century. One of the most important answers to the question of the unity of science has been suggested by reductionists. The present article focuses on two prominent examples of such approaches. The first example was taken from the philosophical movements of rational positivism and the second example was chosen from the post-positivist philosophical movements. We have shown that the supposedly successful reductions in science have given rise to the idea that the answer to the question of the unity of science is possible through reduction. We have then argued that the reductionist approach is fundamentally inefficient, inadequate, and incorrect. Reductionism is ineffective because it does not contribute to conceptual and ontological simplification. It is inadequate because, first, it does not cover the ontological diversity of fundamentally different scientific activities, and second, it does not provide an adequate answer to the explanatory need on why one ontological and epistemological layer is more fundamental than the other ones. Reductionism is wrong because, first, it is incompatible with the history of the evolution of scientific theories; second, it does not properly explain the relationship between evidences and theories. Third, according to Foder, it cannot solve the problem of multiple-realizability; fourth, according to Feyerabend, if the incomparability of scientific theories is correct, the possibility of any kind of communication, including deductive communication, is ruled out. The failure of reductionism shows that models like Nigel and Putnam-Oppenheim do not provide a suitable answer to the problem of the unity of science. Therefore, it is suggested that the answer to the problem of the unity of science be pursued through a non-reductionist approach.
Keywords
Main Subjects
- Baker, Alan (2016) "Simplicity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/simplicity/.
- Bickle, John W. (1998) Psychoneural Reduction: The new wave, MIT Press.
- Brigandt, Ingo and Alan Love (2017) “Reductionism in Biology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reduction-biology/.
- Carnap, Rudolf (1938/1955) “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science”, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Vol. I. Part 1 (Nos. 1-5), Edit. Otto Neurath & Rudolf Carnap & Charles Morris, Chicago Illinois: University of Chicago Press, pp. 42-62.
- Dowell, J. L (2006) “Formulating the Thesis of Physicalism”, Philosophical Studies, 131(1), pp. 1–23.
- Feyerabend, Pual. K. (1962) “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. ΙΙΙ, edit. H. Feigl & G. Maxwell, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, reprinted in Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings, edit. Y. Balashov & A. Rosenberg, 2002, pp. 141-162.
- Fodor, Jerry (1974) “special sciences, or disunity of science as a Working Hypothesis”, Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. I, edit. Ned Joel Block (1980), Harvard University Press, pp.120-133.
- Hatami Mohammad; Reza Sadeqi (2020) “The Critical reading of Models of the Unity of Science in 20th Century”, Occidental Studies, Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 41-61. (in Persian)
- Hempel, C. (1949) “The logical Analysis of Psychology”, Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. I, edit. Ned Joel Block (1980), Harvard University Press, pp.14-23.
- Hempel, Carl (1990) Philosophy of Natural Sciences, trans. Hossein Masoumi Hamedani, Tehran, Markaz Nashr-e Daneshgahi. (in Persian)
- Hooker, C. A. I. (1981) “Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Part I: Historical and Scientific Setting”, Dialogue, Vol. 20, Issue 01, pp. 38 – 59. (in Persian)
- Nagle, Ernest (1961/1979) The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Hackett Publishing Company.
- Oppenheim, Paul & Hillary Putnam (1958) “The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, edit. Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven & Grover Maxwell, Minnesota University Press, pp. 3-36.
- Quine W. V. O. & J. S. Ullian (2014) The Web of Belief, trans. Amir Diwani, Tehran: Soroush Publications and Taha Book. (in Persian)
- Quine, W. V. O. (2011) “On What There Is”, Arqanun Quarterly, Analytical Philosophy (collection of articles), trans. Manouchehr Badiei, Vol. 2, Issue. 7 - 8, 3rd edition, pp. 231-249. (in Persian)
- Van Riel, Raphael; Robert Van Gulick (2019) “Scientific Reduction”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Vol. 11, Mind, Causation, and World (1997), pp. 107-132, https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2019/entries/scientific-reduction/
- Wilson, Edward (2018) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, trans. Mohammad Ibrabim Mahjoub, Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (in Persian)
)
Send comment about this article