If somebody gets overly excited about a hammer and starts to see the worlsd as nails then having an opinion that hammers are not that great is not an invitation to understand the world as non-nails.
It is not like reductionism is the only tool in the box. Control some variables. Perform some interventions and observe.
Saying that paper exists doesn’t make correct for “lets make wagons out of non-wood” being an overtly general insight.
I think this might be a semantic distinction, if “I use non-reductionist methods in microbiology” conveys the same meaning as “I use metagenomics etc.” then it’s not nonapples.
Thanks for the comment. I now think the original title put the emphasis in the wrong place so I’ve changed that.
Sure if “I use non-wood in my carts” means that you use metal in your carts then it is not nonapples. But if you are relying on the context to get that limitation it is still pretty shaky. And I thought part of why the nonapple issue emerges is that narrow negative definitions turn into genuinely wide negative definitions. By using positive definitions we can be consistent and aware how wide our nets are.
If we have a naming scheme like “hammer and non-hammer” and everybody uses a standardised toolset there is no confusion. But if somebody has “hammer, sickle” and somebody has a “hammer, saw” toolset then “non-hammers” relativity to the toolbox standardization migth lead to confusion. If we use references that refer only the tool itself the references correctly resolve irregardless on what kind of toolboxes they are found in.
Yeah I think you’re right actually. My own confusion was probably due to the conflation:
Holistic = Non-reductionist = Nonapple
Where the first step of this is incorrect, rather than the second step.
I think this whole confusion is what has led me to be too critical of “holistic” approaches in the past, where these approaches are in fact well developed.
If somebody gets overly excited about a hammer and starts to see the worlsd as nails then having an opinion that hammers are not that great is not an invitation to understand the world as non-nails.
It is not like reductionism is the only tool in the box. Control some variables. Perform some interventions and observe.
Saying that paper exists doesn’t
makecorrect for “lets make wagons out of non-wood” being an overtly general insight.I think this might be a semantic distinction, if “I use non-reductionist methods in microbiology” conveys the same meaning as “I use metagenomics etc.” then it’s not nonapples.
Thanks for the comment. I now think the original title put the emphasis in the wrong place so I’ve changed that.
Sure if “I use non-wood in my carts” means that you use metal in your carts then it is not nonapples. But if you are relying on the context to get that limitation it is still pretty shaky. And I thought part of why the nonapple issue emerges is that narrow negative definitions turn into genuinely wide negative definitions. By using positive definitions we can be consistent and aware how wide our nets are.
If we have a naming scheme like “hammer and non-hammer” and everybody uses a standardised toolset there is no confusion. But if somebody has “hammer, sickle” and somebody has a “hammer, saw” toolset then “non-hammers” relativity to the toolbox standardization migth lead to confusion. If we use references that refer only the tool itself the references correctly resolve irregardless on what kind of toolboxes they are found in.
Yeah I think you’re right actually. My own confusion was probably due to the conflation:
Holistic = Non-reductionist = Nonapple
Where the first step of this is incorrect, rather than the second step.
I think this whole confusion is what has led me to be too critical of “holistic” approaches in the past, where these approaches are in fact well developed.