I like to think of reductionism as a 4-yr old repeatedly asking the same question (but instead of the usual "why?", it's "how?"). -How does a toaster work? -Bread gets hot inside -How? -There's metal that heats up -How? -Electricity running through... ...And so on forever
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.
-
I don't identify with "reductionist" at all. Just to be clear. Although I'm aware you can create a definition that might include me, I don't think that's the standard one.

-
That's fair to say. I think hardline reductionists have given the name some unfortunate baggage. We need to take it back!
-
Good luck to you!

-
This literally just popped up in my TL.
https://twitter.com/QuantaMagazine/status/1029074105444777984?s=19 … -
Guess I just got told by Quanta. Sorry Grace! We're wrong after all.
- 2 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.