In this blog post, we examine whether reductionism helps us understand complex phenomena or whether it distorts the whole.
Reductionism is the view that, when interpreting complex phenomena, breaking them down into their most basic units and analyzing each one will ultimately lead to an understanding of the phenomenon as a whole. This perspective has been applied not only in science but also in various academic fields such as philosophy, psychology, and even sociology. The notion that an object is a collection of atoms, or that an idea is a combination of sensory impressions, is a form of reductionism. For example, in physics, when analyzing matter, breaking it down to the atomic level to understand the properties of each atom in order to grasp the properties of matter as a whole is one such example. While this approach can sometimes be very useful, it carries the risk of overlooking the bigger picture.
In 20th-century philosophy, two general forms of reductionism were advocated. First, logical positivists argued that expressions referring to existing things or states of affairs could be defined in terms of directly observable objects or sensory data. Therefore, they claimed that any statement of fact is equivalent to a series of statements that can be empirically verified. In particular, logical positivists argued that the theoretical entities of science could be defined in terms of observable physical phenomena, and that scientific laws were equivalent to combinations of observational reports. For example, they maintained that the laws of classical physics were derived by synthesizing numerous experimental results, and that this allows us to understand the physical world. While this approach is very powerful, not all phenomena can be explained in this way.
Second, proponents of the unity of science argued that the theoretical entities of specific sciences, such as biology or psychology, can be defined in terms of the entities of more fundamental sciences, such as physics. For example, they view biological phenomena as explainable through physical and chemical processes, and believe that all behaviors and characteristics of living organisms are ultimately determined by physical laws. Furthermore, proponents of the unity of science have argued that the laws of these sciences can be explained in terms of the laws of more fundamental sciences. This is a perspective that emphasizes the unity and universality of science, stemming from the belief that all natural phenomena can be explained by a single, consistent system of laws.
However, reductionism has clear limitations. For example, when analyzing the motion of a ball as a physical phenomenon, one might interpret this to mean that the motion of every single atom must be analyzed. However, such detailed analysis does not always help us understand the whole. From an evolutionary perspective, understanding evolution involves identifying how individual organisms change incrementally, rather than viewing it as an overall increase in diversity, and using that to understand the evolution of the population. While this can be useful in that changes at the individual level lead to changes at the population level, it does not fully explain the complexity of the ecosystem as a whole.
The limitation of reductionism lies in the problems that arise when one attempts to apply a microscopic perspective too directly to the macroscopic world. In particular, a reductionist approach is often insufficient for understanding social and psychological phenomena. When analyzing individual behavior, it is important to examine neural activity or hormonal changes; however, such microscopic analysis may not fully explain an individual’s behavior within its social context. Of course, this does not mean the argument is entirely wrong, but it provides limited useful information.
Reductionism is useful for identifying the components that make up a complex phenomenon and the rules governing the interactions between those components. For example, when analyzing economic phenomena, attempts to understand overall economic trends by analyzing the behavior of individual consumers or firms are a case in point. However, it is impossible to easily predict or perfectly reproduce a specific phenomenon based solely on its components and the rules governing their interactions. From a reductionist perspective, the three-body problem—a simple system consisting of three massive objects and gravity alone—should be nothing more than an applied problem of classical mechanics. Yet, it has been proven that no stable general solution exists for this problem, and only 16 families of particular solutions have been discovered.
Initial configurations not included among the particular solutions fall into the realm of chaos theory, which can only be approached through numerical analysis. This is one example demonstrating that a reductionist approach cannot be applied to every problem.
Although increasing the number of objects does not entail significant changes in the components or interaction rules, the phenomena resulting from these interactions become increasingly complex. In his book ‘Biology as Ideology’, Richard Charles Lewontin argues that confusing individual aggression with state aggression is a mistake. “We must distinguish between the sudden hormonal changes an individual experiences when slapped in the face and the political agenda of a state aimed at controlling natural resources, trade routes, agricultural prices, and the availability of labor—which are the causes of war.” In this way, attempts to explain micro-level phenomena by extrapolating them to the whole can fall into the trap of oversimplifying complex phenomena.
Furthermore, we can also find the limitations of reductionism in works of art. Let’s consider a specific work of art—a painting, for example. We can break down the materials of the canvas, the pigments, and the substances that make up the canvas and pigments to the atomic level. However, the probability of recreating the original artwork using only those atoms and the laws governing their interactions converges to zero. The value of art lies not solely in its individual components, but in the overall context and meaning created by the combination of those elements.
While reductionism may seem plausible at first glance, as the examples above demonstrate, in reality this approach fails to provide a means of understanding or predicting complex phenomena. Therefore, I believe the claims of reductionism are incorrect. For this reason, while reductionism may be useful in and of itself, it is insufficient to fully explain complex phenomena. We must maintain a balance between microscopic analysis and macroscopic understanding and seek other theoretical frameworks that can complement the reductionist approach.
