Physics 101 teaches that a = F/m,
meaning that every mass moves in response to the sum of forces acting upon
it ("a" is vector acceleration, "F" is the vector sum of
forces, and "m" is particle mass). There are only 4 forces in nature,
with electromagnetic and gravity forces being the most commonly invoked.
(Quantum Theory should be thought of as a more precise way to understand
phenomena at very small scales; it seems to possess random properties,
but this does not invalidate that all particle motion is governed by basic
physical laws, which is the essential concept of reductionism.)
Temperature and pressure are examples of "constructed" properties useful in meteorology for predicting air motion. To say that pressure gradients cause wind does not challenge the position that a = F/m is the ultimate cause for wind. There is an unspoken understanding of this distinction in the physical sciences. When such concepts as temperature and wind are used, there is a tacit acknowledgement that a "higher" conceptual level for understanding the world is being employed. The idea of "higher" levels for understanding things is important in reconciling psychology, philosophy, etc with the REAL explanation for the movement of everything in the universe: physics.
Perhaps this subtle point is not appreciated within the less physical sciences, such as biology or animal behavior. Consider the objection "Game theoretical models move up rather than down the reductionist scale," as the eminent biologist John Maynard Smith is reported to have said (Charles Seife, "Biologists Cut Reductionist Approach Down to Size," Science, Research News, 25 July, 1997, p. 476). Yes, game theory is a higher level of explanation than a = F/m, but game theory does not "replace" a = F/m from it's throne as the ultimate cause for animal behavior; game theory is merely a more useful "level of explanation" for studying animal behavior.
Reductionism is not an "Astonishing Hypothesis," as Francis Crick argues (The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, New York: Scribner & Sons, 1994); nor is it a "dangerous idea," as Daniel Dennett argues (Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the meanings of Life, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); reductionism is the only hypothesis worthy of scientific consideration.
Investigators in each scientific field may still question how often the lowest level of explanation can usefully be invoked, and they should ask such questions. Higher levels of explanation will usually be judged to be more useful, but this will not constitute a challenge to reductionism; it merely means that employing a=F/m concepts is not feasible for most cases treated within that discipline. In spite of this, it should always be remembered that a = F/m is the ultimate cause for all phenomena.
Would you like a longer explanation of Reductionism?
This site opened: September 26, 1998. Last Update: July 23, 2002