allopathy 2 - has become reductionism

[Guest guest]

Joe said:

> We agree; just one more point: reductionism as a tool must be followed by

> constructionism (if such a word exists).......what is the point of taking an

> engine apart if you cannot rebuild it, hopefully better........

Hi Joe, reductionism necessarily implies putting it together, as the whole point

of going down to smaller components is to better understand the whole! This is

why I included the quote by , who is a very orthodox scientist indeed. You

analyse and then you synthesise. Reductionism could (I think!) possibly be

charged with usually being limited to linear causality, i.e. postulating a

straight line of cause and effect, which often is perfectly adequate but at

other times just can't explain what's going on (i.e. certain phenomena such as

flow and turbulence in complex systems).

Just to clarify: I'm not looking to put reductionism on some sort of pedestal.

My reason for going on about all this is that I suspect that the reason

reductionism is used as a pejorative is (mostly) unconnected with what the term

actually means, but that people use it as a catchword to show that they distance

themselves from either medical science or science in general and in particular

from the fact that science does not require a 'ghost in the machine'.

Fair enough if that is what people think (i don't know, is it?), but why not

spell it out, and then discuss the implication this would have on the

relationship of herbal medicine to science, rather than hiding behind fuzzy

concepts?

Best wishes

Sabine