Comments on: Why reductionism in the sciences destroys knowledge http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/why-reductionism-in-the-sciences-destroys-knowledge/ Our Conversation Is In Heaven Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:32:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: a thomist http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/why-reductionism-in-the-sciences-destroys-knowledge/#comment-1428 a thomist Fri, 09 May 2008 19:53:32 +0000 http://thomism.wordpress.com/?p=1722#comment-1428 Sorry for repeating that "as such" so much, but it is absolutely necessary to this post. First of all to speak of "animal as such" is the same as saying "animal as an animal". In general, "X as such" = "X as X"= "X insofar as it is considered as an X". To give an example, when you consider a mouse as such, you are seeing it just as a mouse. When you consider a mouse as an animal, you are seeing it in a way that makes it <em>no different</em> from an elephant, a cat, or a mosquito. The mouse in a certain sense "disappears" into simply animal as such. Here's the catch: when you explain a mouse as an animal, you really do explain something about it, but what you say can also be just as well said of an elephant or a chimp or a two-year-old boy. Physics, which treats of the mobile as mobile, can tell us something true about everything in nature, but it can't tell us anything about the various individual things distinctly, or "as such". Sorry for repeating that “as such” so much, but it is absolutely necessary to this post. First of all to speak of “animal as such” is the same as saying “animal as an animal”. In general, “X as such” = “X as X”= “X insofar as it is considered as an X”. To give an example, when you consider a mouse as such, you are seeing it just as a mouse. When you consider a mouse as an animal, you are seeing it in a way that makes it no different from an elephant, a cat, or a mosquito. The mouse in a certain sense “disappears” into simply animal as such.

Here’s the catch: when you explain a mouse as an animal, you really do explain something about it, but what you say can also be just as well said of an elephant or a chimp or a two-year-old boy. Physics, which treats of the mobile as mobile, can tell us something true about everything in nature, but it can’t tell us anything about the various individual things distinctly, or “as such”.

]]> By: netrok http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/why-reductionism-in-the-sciences-destroys-knowledge/#comment-1427 netrok Fri, 09 May 2008 19:28:09 +0000 http://thomism.wordpress.com/?p=1722#comment-1427 When you say "as such"- termites "as such", etc.- do we take this to mean a reference to substance? Or perhaps (also?) as reference to the universal (ie., common noun) as abstracted from the particular, by which we denominate all things into species and genera? When you say “as such”- termites “as such”, etc.- do we take this to mean a reference to substance? Or perhaps (also?) as reference to the universal (ie., common noun) as abstracted from the particular, by which we denominate all things into species and genera?

]]>