1) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REDUCTIONISM

Mechanical Materialism

Reductionism is the belief that complex phenomena can be "reduced" to simpler physical processes, which themselves can in theory be reduced to the simplest level of physical explanation where elementary particles interact according to the laws of physics.  The ancient concept of Mechanical Materialism captures the essence of reductionism, but relies upon the outdated concept that at the most basic level the particles are stone like, and interact by hitting each other like billiard balls.

Quantum Physics

Modern physics has shown that the tiny particles from which everyday objects are constructed consist of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. (all of which are in turn constructed from 12 elementary building blocks of matter), and that there are four forces of nature that govern the motion of these tiny masses (gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and weak).  Moreover, at the atomic scale and smaller it is necessary to invoke quantum physics (quantum mechanics, to deal with particles, and quantum field theory, to explain radiation and its interaction with particles).  Quantum physics is inherently probabilistic, or indeterminate, and has been described as having so much "quantum weirdness" that our minds are intuitively unprepared to comprehend it.

"Levels" of Physical Explanation

The refinements of modern physics do not detract from the central concept of materialism, which is that everyday (large-scale) phenomena are the result of the mindless interaction of a myriad of tiny particles in accordance with invariant laws of physics.  Reductionism emphasizes the importance of understanding the many ways of explaining complex phenomena as the result of simpler, more physical processes.  Science embraces what might be termed the "first law of reductionism," that whenever a phenomenon can be explained by recourse to a more basic level of physical law, the competing explanation is rendered superfluous (e.g., the sun rises each morning, not because some god makes it happen, but because the earth rotates).

Materialism and reductionism view "mind" as an "emergent property" of complex living systems (see emergent phenomena, below), resulting from the complex interaction of electrons, protons, etc.  "Thoughts, emotions, intentions" and other everyday mental phenomena are superfluous concepts for anyone wishing to understand ultimate causes for events, since physics makes a good case for being able to conceptually account for the entire unfolding motion of particles that compose the material world - including those particles that constitute a brain.

Ironically, such things as "thoughts, emotions and intentions" are mental constructions of the brain that in everyday situations are more "useful" than the laws of physics.  But, as useful as they seem to be, since they are not needed to explain the world using the more fundamental concepts of physics, it can be said that they don't exist at the most fundamental level of understanding.  Even "free will" must be shorn of its essential features, and recast as another "parallel" product of real causes.  It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway, that reductionism rejects magic, spirits, mysticism, prayer and God, and relegates them to a category of "non-existent" products of mental activity which must have served some evolutionary purpose (for the genes that make human brains).

The attitude just described is that of a "hard core reductionist."  Other reductionists feel uncomfortable "discounting" emergent phenomena, though if pressed they would acknowledge that in theory the emergent phenomena should be reducible to the bottom level of physics.  Reductionists should be thought of as spanning a continuum, stretching toward, but never as far as, the borders of mysticism.

I claim that the entire scientific enterprise is "reductionist" since the goal of scientific investigations is to "reduce" an observed phenomenon to a simpler phenomenon by employing the laws of physics.  The human mind seems intent upon seeing "levels" of physical explanation, and the scientist always endeavors to reduce things to a next lower level.  At the bottom level are the four forces of nature which, in classical physics (i.e., 19th Century physics), account for the motion of all particles by invoking the governing equation "F=ma."  (Although I will represent physical law with F=ma, the epitome of classical physics, instead of the more exact, but cumbersome, quantum physics, the end point of my argument is unaffected by this simplification.)

The F=ma equation is more easily understood by rearranging it thus: a = F/m, where a is the acceleration of a particle, F is the sum of forces acting upon it, and m is the particle's mass (a and F are in bold print to denote that they are vectors, having direction as well as magnitude).  For a system of N particles, each particle "feels" (its motion is influenced by) the other N-1 particles, according to:  a = (F₁ + F₂ + F₃ + ... F_N-1)/m, where each F is the sum of the 4 force types (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).  In the real world, where the number of particles is astronomical, N is so large that it is even theoretically impossible to perform such a calculation (though it can still be imagined as a "thought experiment").  Classical physics is a paradigm for understanding the universe of particles as an immense pinball machine, or billiard table, with the exception that the balls interact in more complicated ways than merely bouncing off each other elastically when they "hit."  But this mental picture was a necessary early step in comprehending the world, and for the bulk of science it is a sufficient paradigm.

Statistical Determinism Required by Quantum Physics

It now seems that two of the aforementioned four forces can be "unified."  The strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together, and it also holds together three quarks that comprise neutrons and protons.  The "weak" force is also only important at very short distances, comparable to the size of the nucleus.  The weak nuclear force is apparently another "aspect" of the electromagnetic force, according to a theory for which Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.  If experiments continue to validate this theory, there will only be three forces:  gravity, electroweak and nuclear.  It is hoped that someday all forces can be unified into a theory for just one force.

The branches of science that deal with particles at the atomic level and smaller require the use of quantum physics, QP (quantum mechanics and quantum field theory).  Without QP the universe would be deterministic, and "strict determinism" would be true.  Because QP is inherently "probabilistic," and because there seems to be no alternative theory that can account for atomic phenomena, materialists must (grudgingly) accept "statistical determinism" as a necessary refinement to the otherwise deterministic unfolding of an F=ma universe.  Statistical determinism acknowledges the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by envisioning future states of the universe as having greater amounts of uncertainty the further one goes into the future.  Since all "predictions" are "probabilistic," and since the far-future encompasses more intermediate states than near-future ones, prediction probability functions spread out as one goes further into the future.

Nevertheless, the essence of how physical phenomena are to be perceived is unchanged by incorporating quantum physics; this will also be true for new theories attempting to unify the four forces, such as the incompletely worked out "grand unified theory," and string theory.  The essential perspective of all physicists is the same, for they all exclude magic, spirits, angels, prayer and God as having influence over ongoing motions and the future state of the universe.

F=ma in Live Brains and Free Will

All reductionists would agree that it is desirable to try to explain a (repeatablly) observed phenomenon in terms of the most basic level of physical theory possible, and that an explanation that relies upon F=ma, the most basic level, is the ultimate goal.  (Invoking QP instead of F=ma, where this is appropriate, is comparable to invoking F=ma for the purposes of the present argument, since QP is also the lowest level of reduction that is possible for those situations requiring QP instead of the F=ma of classical physics.)

Where reductionists most often disagree among themselves is how much this "reduction paradigm" can be expected to apply to the understanding of living things.  The hard core reductionist holds that living things are subject to the same physical laws as the non-living, and that F=ma (or QP) is the ultimate goal for understanding life phenomena.  By this reasoning the hard core reductionist reduces every living thing to the status of robots:  humans are "robots of the first kind" - not designed by other humans, but assembled by genes.  Free will is an "emergent phenomenon" (see below) of complex living things, an epiphenomenon that tricks the robot mind into an incorrect belief concerning causation.  Other reductionists object to this view, and assert that in living things there is something else, unspecified at the present time, which must be taken into account.  Although they would welcome as much F=ma as possible, they believe that some events within living entities require a mysterious something additional for a complete understanding.  In my writings I refer to these reductionists as "soft core."  By analogy, I am a "hard core reductionist."

The following diagram illustrates how a hard core reductionist differs from everyone else.

Figure caption:  What's wrong with this diagram?  The arrows indicate a few of the forces "felt by" the central proton that exist because of nearby particles.  Physics 101 teaches that there are only 4 forces that influence the motion of particles:  gravity, electromagnetism, and two nuclear forces.  (In this figure I don't bother listing the nuclear forces; they are unimportant for all scales larger than atomic ones.)  If other forces existed then laboratory experiments would show particles departing from expected motions and this would then allow for the existence of mysterious other forces to be postulated, such as the ones indicated in the figure.  However, experiments to date are explained by invoking no more than the 4 known forces of nature, so the "hard core reductionist" concludes that such things as free will, prayer, etc. are "emergent" properties of complex living systems of particles, best described as existing only at a redundant level of "understanding."

In order for "free will" to exist, it must be able, somehow, to influence the motion of particles inside living things, else the body and brain would move like a robot.  One formidable challenge to "free will" believers, as well as those who believe in prayer, God, etc., is to conjure a way to create forces with just the right strength and direction so as to move particles, such as the proton in the above figure, in just the right way to achieve the "willed" or "prayed for" result.  Note that these extra forces would have to act upon a large network of particles in the brain, each being influenced at the right time and by the right amount, so that as a system they bring about the mental activity that causes behavior to change.  Ridiculous?  Of course!  As Albert Einstein wrote:  "The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events."  Ideas and Opinions.

The hard core reductionist rejects the notion of the hypothetical and groundless forces identified in the diagram as "free will, prayer, God, etc."  Without these mythical "forces" only the forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear ones are operational (acknowledging that QP is to be invoked where appropriate).  I believe that this way of viewing the distinction between a hard core reductionist and the others is a decisive refutation of the "soft core" reductionist position, and therefore leads inexorably  to a universe that is an immense "mechanism" that moves in a statistically determined manner - unaware, and uncaring, of the effects upon humans.  I hope that soft core reductionists would think about their assumptions using the figure, above, and that they will eventually realize the futility of their notion that living things are moved by something mysterious, not yet incorporated by physical theory.  For people who are not yet soft core reductionists, there is no hope!

In order to rescue the notion of "free will" I propose that we define it the following way: "Free Will is the feeling that we can influence what we believe to be the future course of events, and the belief that the resultant change is caused by our thoughts."  Such a definition is compatible with F=ma determinism, since the "feelings" we have can be emergent phenomena, and our belief about "the future course of events" can be declared uncertain (since they did not take into account the so-called "free will" thoughts, etc.).  Although the future can never be known for the entire universe since there are too many particles to take into account and because a set of "initializing conditions" can never be determined, the concept for it as a "thought experiment" is a sufficient basis for the hard core reductionist to adhere to the belief in a statistical form of determinism as a corollary to reductionism.

The essential flaw of man's feelings of "free will" were discerned by two 19th Century philosophers.  First, Schopenhauer wrote "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine what he wills."    Second, Nietzsche wrote "...That which comes later, the motivation, is experienced first... The ideas engendered by a certain condition have been misunderstood as the cause of that condition..."  (Twilight of the Idols, 1889).

Emergent Phenomena

The concept of "emergent phenomena" should help resolve some of the problems skeptics have with reductionism.  I will treat two examplesin physics, then comment on "consciousness" as an emergent phenomenon.

First, sodium and chlorine atoms combine to form  NaCl molecules, which under certain conditions can form a solid crystal that we know in everyday life as common table salt.  The formation of the NaCl molecule, and its arrangement into a crystal, are due to simple electrical forces that can be understood using F=ma.  Only molecules that have a required symmetry of electrical fields when they are close to each other will form crystals.  The regular spacing of NaCl molecules, forming a 3 dimensional lattice, is an "emergent property" of solid salt, and is an inherent outcome of our F=ma understanding of how particles interact.  Even though the lattice structure of a salt crystal is not the most basic level for understanding things, it can be a far more convenient starting point for an investigation of other properties of the material than F=ma would be; but this does not invalidate the position that everything about a salt crystal is the result of an unfolding of F=ma upon an immense number of particles.

For a second example of an emergent property, consider the atmosphere, which consists of an immense number of molecules.  Any thought of using F=ma applied at the level of molecules for the purpose of predicting the weather would be silly.  It would be a silly idea because of its impracticality, for there is no way to know the position and velocity of all the molecules in the atmosphere at a given time for establishing the "initial conditions" required for subsequent calculation using F=ma.  Rather, the meteorologist employs such emergent properties as "atmospheric pressure" and "wind speed" to perform quasi-F=ma calculations.  Anything that works, even the fictitious "coriolis force" (for dealing with the earth's rotation) is employed because it gets the job done in a timely manner.  The meteorologist regularly employs the handy rule that "wind speed will be proportional to the pressure gradient."  However, every atmospheric scientist would acknowledge that whenever a meteorologist relies on a handy rule what is really occurring in the atmosphere is the unfolding of an immense system of particles obeying F=ma.  Just because scientists find it useful to employ "emergent properties" does not mean that they exist; rather, their existence is no more than a useful prop for dealing with a complex system.  A "pressure gradient" doesn't exist in nature, it exists only in the minds of humans.  Model idealizations of an atmosphere can be used to prove, using F=ma, that the thing called a "pressure gradient" is associated with wind, but these very proofs belie the existence of the concept, for they "invent" the concept of a pressure gradient for use in a model that then uses F=ma for aggregations of molecules to calculate aggregate air motions which show that these motions should be associated with the invented property called "pressure gradient."  The handy meteorology rules, and their "emergent property" tools, are fundamentally redundant to F=ma.

By analogy, "consciousness" is an emergent phenomenon just as the "wind" is an emergent phenomenon.  The person willing to consider the wind in terms of a large number of molecules moving with respect to a reference system can be excused for stating that the concept "wind" is superfluous and non-existent for his new perspective.  A psychologist can likewise attempt to understand the phenomena normally associated with consciousness by imagining a large network of neurons interconnected by axons, and with this new perspective exclaim that "consciousness" is superfluous and non-existent.  The reader may balk at extrapolating emergent phenomena in physical systems to living organisms.  Nevertheless, a living organism IS a physical system, and just because a living thing is capable of producing very complicated emergent phenomena doesn't warrant treating them differently.  This is the essence of "emergent phenomena" as viewed by a reductionist.

Mistaken Versions of Reductionism

People have a penchant for taking an idea that's especially objectionable, or threatening, and creating a caricature of it that's easy to discredit.  Pretty soon everybody is confused over the caricature's origin, and futile arguments drone on, centered on the bogus creation, which has the intended effect of tarnishing the genuine idea.

For some odd reason it is alleged that "reductionism" threatens to displace all other disciplines of academic inquiry ("theory reductionism").  Yet, it is unimaginable that a physicist with capabilities in F = ma and quantum theory would ever approach a "higher level" discipline, such as psychology, with the intention of addressing the same questions that people want to ask in that field.  Hence, psychologists will continue to ask what makes people "happy," what's the ultimate causation explanation for specific things making people happy and unhappy, etc.  The concept "happy," and all other emergent phenomena, are - to use a mathematical term - orthogonal to all lower levels of understanding, such as the basement level of physics.  People calling themselves psychologists, philosophers, etc, don't have to worry about being displaced by phsyicists.  However, they will have to acknowledge what sociobiolgists have to say about their discipline (as forecast by E. O. Wilson in Sociobiology: The New Synthesis), since sociobiology is at a similar "level" with psychology and philosophy.  And psychologists will have to become acquainted with "humility" as they acknowledge, grudgingly to be sure, that their explanations for why a person does what he does is really a game played for the fun of it, given that a person really does what he does because F = ma and QT made him do it.  I doubt that psychologists will ever understand this, not only because it is a threatening idea, but because they don't understand physics, and their minds are constructed in such a way that they "hate" physics notions.  This is a "two cultures" issue, a discussion of which is better left for another venue.

Another caricature of reductionism ("explanatory reductionism") also makes reference to the different "levels" for comprehending the world, such as (from lowest level to higher) physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, psychology and philosophy, for example.  It is alleged that a precondition for progress at any given level is progress at a lower level.  Thus, progress in philosophy is contingent on a better understanding of quantum theory.  This misunderstanding may have arisen from the fact that advances at one level have sometimes enabled advances to occur within a field at a next-higher level.  But anyone is mistaken if they believe that this occasional occurence is what reductionism is all about.

Other variants of "reductionism" abound (biological, methodological, ontological, scientific, etc.), and when they are described it is clear that muddled-minds are at work in taking a "grain of truth" and twisting it to create a caricature without merit - in my humble opinion.

The newest reductionism terminology deserving recognition is that proposed by Steven Weinberg in his book Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries (2001).  As far as I can discern, the reductionism favored on this web page is in 100% conformance with Weinberg's "objective reductionism."

Mental Blind Spots and the Genes

Amazingly, even most meteorologists do not understand that pressure gradients are inventions of the human mind, and don't exist at a fundamental level, and therefore don't cause the wind.  They would have to have this subtle clarification explained to them by an atmospheric scientist, whose job it is to understand the atmosphere at a more fundamental level.  Probably some meteorologists would refuse to accept the F=ma notion as superseding the "pressure gradient" emergent property.  After all, the meteorologist is employed to predict the weather, not to understand the underlying physics of his trade.  So, consider that if a practitioner in a field cannot be expected to understand how misled he is concerning the true nature of the emergent properties required for daily use in his trade, how can the layman be expected to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, which it is not his responsibility to understand at a practical or even fundamental physical level?  The answer, unfortunately, is that the layman cannot be expected to understand these things.  And this is why reductionism is so widely misunderstood!

The brain is an organ, like the heart and liver, designed by the genes to get a job done.  The job requirement for all organs is ultimately to work on behalf of the genes, to increase their numbers in subsequent generations.  This is the position of sociobiologists (also referred to as evolutionary psychologists).  Accordingly, if the brain's job is to advance the cause of the genes then we should expect it to perform well in tasks that affect survival of the genes within the individual and close relatives.  The genes can be expected to be adapted to ancestral environments, and they will create individuals who serve their interests within these specific environments.  We should also expect that if an understanding of certain aspects of reality are subversive to the genetic agenda, then the genes will design brains that are disinclined to perceive the subversive reality.  Sociobiology predicts that every brain will have many "blind spots" - either because the aspect of the outer world is irrelevant to genetic survival or because its comprehension could subvert the goal of employing the individual for genetic service.  This little diversion is meant to explain why so few people are inclined to embrace reductionism.

Reductionists are Rare

No two reductionists will have the same beliefs, and some of the previous paragraphs may be rejected by some who I would still describe as reductionists.  I believe the "hard core" version of reductionism which I have presented would be embraced by Democritus, were he alive today.  I trust that it is compatible with the beliefs of most of the writers identified as "hard core reductionists" in the list below (next section).

Based on the incidence of atheisim (Greeley, 1997), an approximate estimate for the incidence of reductionists would be:

    ~ 3.4 % of Americans are "soft core reductionists" (more in northern Europe, less in most other regions),
    ~ 0.8 % of Americans are "hard core reductionists" (more in northern Europe, less in most other regions).

2) WRITINGS BY NOTED REDUCTIONISTS

 The following is a list of notable reductionists, with an asterisk (*) indicating who I have tentatively identified as "hard core":

   *Democritus of Abdera (c. 460-360 BC):  Democritus samplings
     Lucretius, Titus (98-55 BC): Lucretius samplings
     Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679)
     Descartes, Rene (1595-1650), example of stumbling thought
     Newton, Isaac (1642 - 1727), Newton Samplings
     Voltaire, Francois M. (1694-1778)
     Mettrie, Julien de la (1709-1751): Man a Machine
     Diderot, Denis (1713-1784)
     Helvetius, Claude-Adrien (1715-1771)
   *Holbach, Paul d' (1723-1789)
   *Laplace, Pierre-Simon (1749-1827): Laplace sample
     Messlier
     Schopenhauer, Arthur (1788-1860):  Schopenhauer samplings
     Darwin, Charles (1809-1882):  Darwin home page
   *Kirchkoff, Gustav R. (1824-1887)
   *Huxley, Thomas H. (1825-1895):  Automata
   *Wells, Herbert. G. (1866-1946):  Wells samplings
     Dreiser, Theodore (1871-1945): Dreiser samplings
   *Russell, Bertrand, (1872-1970):   A Free Man's Worship  (my favorite essay)
   *Einstein, Albert (1879-1955):  Einstein samplings
     Durant, Will (1885-?):
   *Edman, Erwin (1896-?), Samplings
     Pauling, Linus (1901-1994):
   *Turing, Alan (1912-1954
     Wilson, Edward O. (1929-):  Consilience article
   *Weinberg, Steven (1933-): Weinberg samplings, Facing Up (book)
   *Sagan, Carl, (1934-1996):   Sagan samplings
     Dawkins, Richard (1941-): Unofficial home page
     Dennett, Daniel C. (1942-) home page
   *Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1945-)
     Willliams, George C. Sampling, Interview
 

3) COLLECTION OF QUOTES WITH REDUCTIONIST FLAVOR

The following links include many quotes with a reductionist flavor, and some that anyone would enjoy:

    Quotes1
    Quotes2
    Quotes3
    Quotes4
    Quotes5
    More quotes, grouped by book
 

4) LINKS TO OTHER PAGES WITH REDUCTIONIST MATERIAL

    Stalking the Wild Taboo  (For people unafraid of politically incorrect ideas)

     HBES  (Human Behavior and Evolution Society)

     Center for Evolutionary Psychology  (at UCSB) and a Primer Evolutionary Psychology (i.e., sociobiology)

      Description of book:  The God Part of the Brain, Matthew Alpert
 

5) UNPUBLISHED REDUCTIONIST AND SOCIOBIOLOGY MATERIAL

    Physics 101

    Levels of Selection and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations

    Me Robot!

    Genetic Enslavement: A Call to Arms for Individual Liberation is a book that will be available for sale in May, 2004.
    Samples of the book (Table of Contents, Prologue, Chapter 12, Referecnes, Index) and ordering information can be seen at ???@????

 6) ARE YOU A REDUCTIONIST?

If you like the folowing quote from a Bertrand Russell essay about the human predicament, then you may call yourself a "reductionist."

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual beyond the grave; that all the labors of all the ages, all the devotion, all the aspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins - all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."  Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship, published in Independent Review, 1903 (also included as Chapter 3 in Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays, W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1929).

    Note:  This site is still under construction, after its creation 1999 November 25.
 

This site opened:  November 25, 1999.  Last Update:  May 2, 2004