It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning?

Question

Does " It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning" mean "agape is obviously a strong rebuttal to the evolutionist"?

Context:

Agape, or selfless altruism, presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning. It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves. Quite the contrary: it
may lead humans to make sacrifices that lead to great personal suffering, injury, or death, without any evidence of benefit. And yet, if we carefully examine that inner voice we sometimes call conscience, the motivation to practice this kind of love exists within all of us, despite our frequent efforts to ignore it.

Dave_anon · Accepted Answer

Hi

Yes, I think you have the meaning of the sentence correct there

At least, that is what the writer wants to say. However, it's worth noting that there's a difference between 'challenge' and 'rebuttal' on the one hand, and 'scandal' on the other

People who work in science or in any other kind of rational or intellectual activity expect to find challenges and rebuttals all the time. A main part of science just is to try to design experiments or come up with ideas that show errors or imperfections in current theories. That's an important part of the day-to-day work of science

A scandal, however, is something to be ashamed of. What the writer is trying to do is make science look like a doubtful activity because scientists are constantly faced with shame, embarrassment and loss of honour when their theories come into question. But that's just not so. Science thrives when theories have to be modified or replaced in the light of new facts and new thoughts

Dave

NL888 · Answer

Thank you.
But failed to understand " What the writer is trying to do is make science look like a doubtful activity because scientists are constantly faced with shame, embarrassment and loss of honour when their theories come into question".
But science is a self-correcting activity; try and error is absolutely normal. It is either a mistake nor a scandal.
Just as you've pointed out: Science thrives when theories have to be modified or replaced in the light of new facts and new thoughts.
So writer is mistaken?
I think I'm not clearly enough about the meaning of "reductionist reasoning". Is the reasoning a scientific process?

Dave_anon · Answer

Hi

Reductionism is quite a large subject in philosophy. The idea, very briefly, is to take a complex system, identify what we believe to be the basic parts of it, and then explain the system completely, only by referring to those basic parts

A simple - and uncontroversial - example is the case of thunder and lightning. Is there some new thing present in the clouds that create thunder and lightning? Must there be special chemical compounds present? Is it the anger of the Gods? In fact, it is accepted that the effect is produced by the movement of ice particles and water vapour which are, in any case, the basic materials that clouds are made of. No special or additional material is required. That is a reductionist explanation of thunder and lightning

The writer in your paragraph is referring to a much more controversial form of reductionism: the view that everything about human beings can be explained by referring to the atoms that they are made from. In particular, this view asserts that we can understand how humans come to have the form that they do in terms of the human genes - which are just very complicated strings of atoms - molecules such as DNA

One way of rebutting a reductionist theory is to point out something that cannot be explained by the theory. So, the writer is saying that some humans sacrifice themselves for the good of others and that they appear to do this because of an inner voice that we call conscience. Can such behaviour and experience be explained only in terms of complex molecules?

That, very, very briefly, is how reductionist reasoning works and how others might oppose a particular form of it. Is the writer mistaken? The question whether the human mind, and all aspects of human behaviour, can be explained just in terms of the physical make-up of the body is very old and it's right that people should continue to raise the question. However, I'm not too keen on the way it's raised in the original paragraph: I think the points made there are quite a long way from rebutting the scientific view

Dave

CalifJim · Answer

NL888Does " It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning" mean "agape is obviously a strong rebuttal to the evolutionist"?

Not to me. Evolutionists have difficulty explaining how altruism works in terms of the principles of evolution (at least it seems that, in the opinion of the writer, they did at the time this text was written). The writer believes that it is scandalous that they have this difficulty. Maybe he's serious. Maybe he's half-joking.

CJ

Dave_anon · Answer

... just as a post script ...

Actually, it's not certain that evolutionists have a difficulty here. In populations where some individuals are altruistic and some are not, the altruists spend quite a lot of time benefiting each other. Provided that the cost of being an altruist is less than the benefit of being part of the 'in-crowd' of altruists, then the gene will thrive

Even selfish genes find that it pays to be nice to others!

Dave

CalifJim · Answer

... post post-script ...

Granted that there are now ways that evolutionists can explain altruism, it's possible that this was not the case at the time the text in question was written.

I'm going to go back and edit my reply to include this idea.

CJ

It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions