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
-
-
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.
-
So wait, you do actually disagree with Marr then?
-
No no, I was speaking in jest. I don't actually disagree with that statement really. One shouldn't use ONLY the feathers.
End of conversation
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.