The Scientific Curmudgeon

In my last column, I critiqued the proposal of the iconic figure Fritj of Capra that modern science should become less reductionist. Capra, I'm sure you recall, is a particle physicist and author of the tremendously influential Tao of Physics and other books. I ran into him last month at the Swiss Biennial on Science, Technics and Aesthetics in Lucerne, where he described Leonardo da Vinci as a paragon for a new-and-improved anti-reductionist science. I demurred in this space, saying that science cannot help but be reductionist, because reductionism is what science does.To my delight, Capra responded, or, more precisely, objected, to my column, which he said was marred by an "error in reasoning." Here is what he wrote in an email:

"Thank you for your piece about reductionism in science. The error in your reasoning is one which, unfortunately, I have often encountered. As a scientist, I completely agree that reductionism is what science does. As I often explain in my seminars and courses, twentieth-century science has shown repeatedly that all natural phenomena are ultimately interconnected; that their essential properties, in fact, derive from their relationships to other things. Hence, in order to explain any one of them completely, we would have to understand all the others, which is obviously impossible. What makes science possible is precisely the reductionist strategy of taking some relationships into account while leaving others out. Consequently, all scientific models and theories are necessarily limited and approximate. This has become crucial to the contemporary understanding of the scientific method. The critique in my books is not a critique of reductionism per se, but a critique of Cartesian, or mechanistic reductionism, which holds that all complex phenomena can be explained in terms of their smallest parts. Systems and complexity science have dramatically exposed the fallacy of this Cartesian reductionism. For example, life cannot be reduced to the laws of physics and chemistry; consciousness cannot be reduced to neurophysiology, etc."

I'd like to thank Fritjof for his eloquent, gracious reply. But being a small-minded, mean-spirited, bullying person, I must have the last word. So I'll just say that science is what scientists do, and they do whatever works, whether their methodology is reductionist or mechanistic or more systems-oriented, like complexity theory or ecology. Therefore, proposals for a reform of science, no matter how well-intended and eloquent, are futile. As Paul Feyerabend, one of my favorite philosophers, liked to say about the scientific method, "Anything goes." But I also have to say that I'm thrilled to debate with Capra, whose work inspired me to become a science journalist decades ago.

[John Horgan is Director of the Center for Science Writings, which is part of the Stevens College of Arts & Letters. To learn more about the CSW visit www.stevens.edu/csw.]