I think this distinction inevitability boils down to strong dualism vs materialism.
I'm not sure describing the child as being reductionist is correct in the example. It's the adult, the person answering, who is choosing to descend the levels of analysis to address the questions. Not the child.
-
-
Good point. I recognize the infinite depth of (my) kids’ questions, but indeed they do not always mean to probe lower (reductive) levels. Sometimes more like ‘reasons’ or ‘purposes’ or ‘historical explanations’ or ‘rules’.
-
But looking back
@neurograce explicitly said it is like kids ‘why’ questions but then ‘how’ (so an analogy), which may change what kids would mean if they’d ask ‘how’ like they ask ‘why’, as frequently I mean. -
Which raises interesting Q why kids ask much more why than how. Perhaps like
@o_guest says, they tend not to be after reductive explanations, but explanations that improve an understanding if their physical and social world in order to interact with it (“why” —> reasons, causes). -
Ah, I took what she said to mean kids asking why is the same as being reductionist.
-
But we can ask and indeed answer why questions without doing quantum mechanics IMHO.
-
Yep, I don't think reductionism requires that all questions must be reduced down to the lowest level (I don't even think that's possible, there may not be a lowest level), just that it's possible to keep going down until you find the appropriate level for the question.
-
Interesting and inclusive definition. That would make more people reductionists than I think most people think.
-
Yea, I suppose it's better to classify me as a practical reductionist.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.