更改

Type ontological reductionism is the idea that every type of item is a sum type of item, and that every perceivable type of item is a sum of types of items with a lesser degree of complexity. Type ontological reduction of biological things to chemical things is often rejected.<ref name=":7">{{cite web|url=http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_reductionism.html|title=Reductionism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy|work=philosophybasics.com}}</ref>

Type ontological reductionism is the idea that every type of item is a sum type of item, and that every perceivable type of item is a sum of types of items with a lesser degree of complexity. Type ontological reduction of biological things to chemical things is often rejected.

类型本体论还原论的观点是，每一种类型的事物都是事物的总和，每一种可感知的事物类型都是复杂程度较低的事物类型的和。将生物事物还原为化学事物的类型本体论已被普遍摒弃<ref name=":7" />。

类型本体论还原论的观点是，每一种类型的事物都是事物的总和，每一种可感知的事物类型都是复杂程度较低的事物类型的和。将生物事物还原为化学事物的类型本体论已被普遍摒弃<ref name=":7">{{cite web|url=http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_reductionism.html|title=Reductionism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy|work=philosophybasics.com}}</ref>。

[[Michael Ruse]] has criticized ontological reductionism as an improper argument against [[vitalism]].<ref>[http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/29/3/1061.pdf] Michael Ruse, "Do Organisms Exist?", Am. Zool., 29: 1061–1066 (1989)</ref>

[[Michael Ruse]] has criticized ontological reductionism as an improper argument against [[vitalism]].

迈克尔·鲁斯（[[Michael Ruse]]）批评本体论还原论是对活力论的一种不恰当的论证。

迈克尔·鲁斯（[[Michael Ruse]]）批评本体论还原论是对活力论的一种不恰当的论证<ref>[http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/29/3/1061.pdf] Michael Ruse, "Do Organisms Exist?", Am. Zool., 29: 1061–1066 (1989)</ref>。

Methodological reductionism is the position that the best scientific strategy is to attempt to reduce explanations to the smallest possible entities.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Montague|first=Gerard P.|title=Who Am I? Who Is She?: A Naturalistic, Holistic, Somatic Approach to Personal Identity|publisher=Transaction Books|year=2012|isbn=978-3-86838-144-3|location=Piscataway, NJ|pages=308}}</ref> In a biological context, this means attempting to explain all biological phenomena in terms of their underlying biochemical and molecular processes.<ref name=":6">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Reductionism in Biology |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reduction-biology/ |last1=Brigandt |first1=Ingo |date=2017 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |last2=Love |first2=Alan |access-date=2019-04-28}}</ref> Claim of efficacy is demonstrated that the gene – unit of classical heredity – is the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a macro-molecule.<ref name=":1" />

Methodological reductionism is the position that the best scientific strategy is to attempt to reduce explanations to the smallest possible entities. In a biological context, this means attempting to explain all biological phenomena in terms of their underlying biochemical and molecular processes. Claim of efficacy is demonstrated that the gene – unit of classical heredity – is the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a macro-molecule.<ref name=":1" />

Statistical mechanics can be considered as a reconciliation of macroscopic thermodynamic laws with the reductionist method of explaining macroscopic properties in terms of microscopic components.

Statistical mechanics can be considered as a reconciliation of macroscopic thermodynamic laws with the reductionist method of explaining macroscopic properties in terms of microscopic components.

方法论还原论认为，最好的科学策略是试图将解释减少为最小的可能实体<ref name=":1" /> 。在生物学的背景下，这意味着从其潜在的生物化学和分子过程来解释所有生物现象<ref name=":6" />。有力的证明是，基因（经典遗传单位）实质上是一种大分子——脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）<ref name=":1" />。统计力学则可以被认为是宏观热力学定律与用微观组分解释宏观性质的还原方法的调和。

方法论还原论认为，最好的科学策略是试图将解释减少为最小的可能实体 <ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Montague|first=Gerard P.|title=Who Am I? Who Is She?: A Naturalistic, Holistic, Somatic Approach to Personal Identity|publisher=Transaction Books|year=2012|isbn=978-3-86838-144-3|location=Piscataway, NJ|pages=308}}</ref>。在生物学的背景下，这意味着从其潜在的生物化学和分子过程来解释所有生物现象<ref name=":6">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Reductionism in Biology |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reduction-biology/ |last1=Brigandt |first1=Ingo |date=2017 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |last2=Love |first2=Alan |access-date=2019-04-28}}</ref>。有力的证明是，基因（经典遗传单位）实质上是一种大分子——脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）<ref name=":1" />。统计力学则可以被认为是宏观热力学定律与用微观组分解释宏观性质的还原方法的调和。

=== 理论还原论 ===

=== 理论还原论 ===

Theory reduction is the process by which a more general theory absorbs a special theory.<ref name=":0" /> For example, both [[Johannes Kepler|Kepler's]] laws of the motion of the [[planet]]s and [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]]'s theories of motion formulated for terrestrial objects are reducible to Newtonian theories of mechanics because all the explanatory power of the former are contained within the latter. Furthermore, the reduction is considered beneficial because [[Newtonian mechanics]] is a more general theory—that is, it explains more events than Galileo's or Kepler's. Besides scientific theories, theory reduction more generally can be the process by which one explanation subsumes another.

Theory reduction is the process by which a more general theory absorbs a special theory. For example, both [[Johannes Kepler|Kepler's]] laws of the motion of the [[planet]]s and [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]]'s theories of motion formulated for terrestrial objects are reducible to Newtonian theories of mechanics because all the explanatory power of the former are contained within the latter. Furthermore, the reduction is considered beneficial because [[Newtonian mechanics]] is a more general theory—that is, it explains more events than Galileo's or Kepler's. Besides scientific theories, theory reduction more generally can be the process by which one explanation subsumes another.

<u>'''理论还原是一个更一般的而理论吸收一个特殊的理论的过程。'''</u>例如，开普勒的行星运动定律和伽利略的地球物体运动理论都可以还原为牛顿力学理论，因为前者的所有解释力都包含在后者之中。此外，这种还原被认为是有好处的，因为牛顿力学是一个更普遍的理论——也就是说，它比伽利略或开普勒的理论解释了更多的事件。除了科学理论之外，理论归纳通常是一种解释包含另一种解释的过程。

<u>'''理论还原是一个更一般的而理论吸收一个特殊的理论的过程。'''</u><ref name=":0" />例如，开普勒的行星运动定律和伽利略的地球物体运动理论都可以还原为牛顿力学理论，因为前者的所有解释力都包含在后者之中。此外，这种还原被认为是有好处的，因为牛顿力学是一个更普遍的理论——也就是说，它比伽利略或开普勒的理论解释了更多的事件。除了科学理论之外，理论归纳通常是一种解释包含另一种解释的过程。

== 在科学中 ==

== 在科学中 ==

 

还原论的思想和方法构成了许多现代科学发展良好的主题的基础，包括许多物理、化学和分子生物学。经典力学尤其可以被看作是一种还原论的框架。例如，我们根据太阳系的组成部分（太阳和行星）及其相互作用来理解太阳系<ref name=":8">{{Cite book|last=McCauley|first=Joseph L.|title=Dynamics of Markets: The New Financial Economics, Second Edition|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-521-42962-7|location=Cambridge|pages=241}}</ref> 。统计力学则可以被认为是宏观热力学定律与用微观组分解释宏观性质的还原方法的调和。

Reductionist thinking and methods form the basis for many of the well-developed topics of modern [[science]], including much of [[physics]], [[chemistry]] and [[molecular biology]]. [[Classical mechanics]] in particular is seen as a reductionist framework. For instance, we understand the solar system in terms of its components (the sun and the planets) and their interactions.<ref name=":8">{{Cite book|last=McCauley|first=Joseph L.|title=Dynamics of Markets: The New Financial Economics, Second Edition|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-521-42962-7|location=Cambridge|pages=241}}</ref> [[Statistical mechanics]] can be considered as a reconciliation of [[macroscopic]] [[thermodynamic laws]] with the reductionist method of explaining macroscopic properties in terms of [[microscopic]] components.

 

还原论的思想和方法构成了许多现代科学发展良好的主题的基础，包括许多物理、化学和分子生物学。经典力学尤其可以被看作是一种还原论的框架。例如，我们根据太阳系的组成部分（太阳和行星）及其相互作用来理解太阳系<ref name=":8" /> 。统计力学则可以被认为是宏观热力学定律与用微观组分解释宏观性质的还原方法的调和。

Some strong reductionists believe that the behavioral sciences should become "genuine" scientific disciplines based on genetic biology, and on the systematic study of culture (see Richard Dawkins's concept of [[memes]]). In his book ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] introduced the term "hierarchical reductionism"<ref name=":9">Interview with magazine ''[[Third Way (magazine)|Third Way]]'' in which [[Richard Dawkins]] discusses reductionism and religion, February 28, 1995</ref> to describe the opinion that complex systems can be described with a hierarchy of organizations, each of which is only described in terms of objects one level down in the hierarchy. He provides the example of a computer, which using hierarchical reductionism is explained in terms of the operation of [[hard drive]]s, processors, and memory, but not on the level of [[logic gates]], or on the even simpler level of electrons in a [[semiconductor]] medium.

Some strong reductionists believe that the behavioral sciences should become "genuine" scientific disciplines based on genetic biology, and on the systematic study of culture (see Richard Dawkins's concept of [[memes]]). In his book ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] introduced the term "hierarchical reductionism"to describe the opinion that complex systems can be described with a hierarchy of organizations, each of which is only described in terms of objects one level down in the hierarchy. He provides the example of a computer, which using hierarchical reductionism is explained in terms of the operation of [[hard drive]]s, processors, and memory, but not on the level of [[logic gates]], or on the even simpler level of electrons in a [[semiconductor]] medium.

一些强还原论者认为，行为科学应该成为基于遗传生物学和文化系统研究的“真正的”科学分支（参见理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）的模因概念）。在他的《盲眼钟表匠》一书中，道金斯引入了“层次还原论<ref name=":9" /> ”来描述这样一种观点，即复杂系统可以用组织的层次来描述，而每一个组织的层次结构只能用层次结构的下一级对象来描述。他以计算机为例，从硬盘、处理器和内存的角度阐释了层次还原论，而不是基于逻辑门的层次，或者更简单的半导体介质中的电子层次。

一些强还原论者认为，行为科学应该成为基于遗传生物学和文化系统研究的“真正的”科学分支（参见理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）的模因概念）。在他的《盲眼钟表匠》一书中，道金斯引入了“层次还原论 <ref name=":9">Interview with magazine ''[[Third Way (magazine)|Third Way]]'' in which [[Richard Dawkins]] discusses reductionism and religion, February 28, 1995</ref> ”来描述这样一种观点，即复杂系统可以用组织的层次来描述，而每一个组织的层次结构只能用层次结构的下一级对象来描述。他以计算机为例，从硬盘、处理器和内存的角度阐释了层次还原论，而不是基于逻辑门的层次，或者更简单的半导体介质中的电子层次。

Quantum Holonomy theory is a theory of the lowest possible reduction.<ref name=":10">{{cite web|url=https://youtube.com/watch?v=fSVbWwivu5g|website=youtube|title=Does reductionism End? Quantum Holonomy theory says YES|year=2021}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{cite arXiv|eprint=2008.09356|last1=Aastrup|first1=Johannes|last2=Grimstrup|first2=Jesper M.|title=The Metric Nature of Matter|year=2020|class=hep-th}}</ref>

Quantum Holonomy theory is a theory of the lowest possible reduction.

量子整体论是一种最低可能的还原理论。<ref name=":10">{{cite web|url=https://youtube.com/watch?v=fSVbWwivu5g|website=youtube|title=Does reductionism End? Quantum Holonomy theory says YES|year=2021}}</ref><ref name=":11">{{cite arXiv|eprint=2008.09356|last1=Aastrup|first1=Johannes|last2=Grimstrup|first2=Jesper M.|title=The Metric Nature of Matter|year=2020|class=hep-th}}</ref>

Others argue that inappropriate use of reductionism limits our understanding of complex systems. In particular, ecologist [[Robert Ulanowicz]] says that science must develop techniques to study ways in which larger scales of organization influence smaller ones, and also ways in which feedback loops create structure at a given level, independently of details at a lower level of organization. He advocates (and uses) [[information theory]] as a framework to study [[Propensity probability|propensities]] in natural systems.<ref name=":12">R.E. Ulanowicz, ''Ecology: The Ascendant Perspective'', Columbia University Press (1997) ({{ISBN|0-231-10828-1}})</ref> Ulanowicz attributes these criticisms of reductionism to the philosopher [[Karl Popper]] and biologist [[Robert Rosen (theoretical biologist)|Robert Rosen]].<ref name=":13">{{cite journal | last1 = Ulanowicz | first1 = R.E. | year = 1996 | title = Ecosystem Development: Symmetry Arising? | url = http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Symmetry.PDF | journal = Symmetry: Culture and Science | volume = 7 | issue = 3 | pages = 321–334 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130530212418/http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Symmetry.PDF | archive-date = 2013-05-30 }}</ref>

Others argue that inappropriate use of reductionism limits our understanding of complex systems. In particular, ecologist [[Robert Ulanowicz]] says that science must develop techniques to study ways in which larger scales of organization influence smaller ones, and also ways in which feedback loops create structure at a given level, independently of details at a lower level of organization. He advocates (and uses) [[information theory]] as a framework to study [[Propensity probability|propensities]] in natural systems. Ulanowicz attributes these criticisms of reductionism to the philosopher [[Karl Popper]] and biologist [[Robert Rosen (theoretical biologist)|Robert Rosen]].

其他人认为，不恰当使用还原论限制了我们对复杂系统的理解。特别是，生态学家罗伯特·尤兰维奇（Robert Ulanowicz）说，科学必须发展技术来研究大规模组织影响小规模组织的方式，以及反馈循环在给定层次上创造结构的方式，而不受较低层次的组织细节的影响。他提倡使用信息理论作为研究自然系统倾向的框架<ref name=":12" /> 。乌兰诺维茨（Ulanowicz）把这些还原论的批评归因于哲学家卡尔 · 波普尔（ Karl Popper ）和生物学家罗伯特 · 罗森（Robert Rosen）<ref name=":13" />。

其他人认为，不恰当使用还原论限制了我们对复杂系统的理解。特别是，生态学家罗伯特·尤兰维奇（Robert Ulanowicz）说，科学必须发展技术来研究大规模组织影响小规模组织的方式，以及反馈循环在给定层次上创造结构的方式，而不受较低层次的组织细节的影响。他提倡使用信息理论作为研究自然系统倾向的框架<ref name=":12">R.E. Ulanowicz, ''Ecology: The Ascendant Perspective'', Columbia University Press (1997) ({{ISBN|0-231-10828-1}})</ref>。乌兰诺维茨（Ulanowicz）把这些还原论的批评归因于哲学家卡尔 · 波普尔（ Karl Popper ）和生物学家罗伯特 · 罗森（Robert Rosen）<ref name=":13">{{cite journal | last1 = Ulanowicz | first1 = R.E. | year = 1996 | title = Ecosystem Development: Symmetry Arising? | url = http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Symmetry.PDF | journal = Symmetry: Culture and Science | volume = 7 | issue = 3 | pages = 321–334 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130530212418/http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/Symmetry.PDF | archive-date = 2013-05-30 }}</ref>。

斯图尔特 · 考夫曼（Stuart Kauffman）认为复杂系统理论和涌现现象对还原论构成了限制<ref name=":14" />。当系统表现出历史性时，涌现尤为重要<ref name=":15" />。涌现与非线性密切相关<ref name=":16" />。还原论应用的局限性在更复杂的组织层次上尤其明显，包括活细胞<ref name="Huber2013" /> 、神经网络、生态系统、社会，以及由多个反馈回路连接的大量不同组成部分组成的其他系统<ref name="Huber2013" /><ref name="Clayton2006" />。

斯图尔特 · 考夫曼（Stuart Kauffman）认为复杂系统理论和涌现现象对还原论构成了限制<ref name=":14">[http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman06/kauffman06_index.html Beyond Reductionism: Reinventing the Sacred] by Stuart Kauffman</ref>。当系统表现出历史性时，涌现尤为重要<ref name=":15">{{Cite book|last1=Longo|first1=Giuseppe|last2=Montévil|first2=Maël|last3=Kauffman|first3=Stuart|date=2012-01-01|title=No Entailing Laws, but Enablement in the Evolution of the Biosphere|url=https://www.academia.edu/11720588|journal=Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation|series=GECCO '12|location=New York, NY, USA|publisher=ACM|pages=1379–1392|doi=10.1145/2330784.2330946|isbn=978-1-4503-1178-6|arxiv=1201.2069|citeseerx=10.1.1.701.3838|s2cid=15609415}}</ref>。涌现与非线性密切相关<ref name=":16">[http://personal.riverusers.com/~rover/RedRev.pdf A. Scott, ''Reductionism Revisited'', Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11, No. 2, 2004 pp. 51–68]</ref> 。还原论应用的局限性在更复杂的组织层次上尤其明显，包括活细胞<ref name="Huber2013" /> 、神经网络、生态系统、社会，以及由多个反馈回路连接的大量不同组成部分组成的其他系统<ref name="Huber2013">{{cite journal |last1=Huber |first1=F |last2=Schnauss |first2=J |last3=Roenicke |first3=S |last4=Rauch |first4=P |last5=Mueller |first5=K |last6=Fuetterer |first6=C |last7=Kaes |first7=J  |title=Emergent complexity of the cytoskeleton: from single filaments to tissue |journal=Advances in Physics |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=1–112 |year=2013 |doi=10.1080/00018732.2013.771509|bibcode = 2013AdPhy..62....1H |pmid=24748680 |pmc=3985726}} [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00018732.2013.771509 online]</ref> <ref name="Clayton2006" /><ref name="Clayton2006">{{cite journal |editor1-last= Clayton |editor1-first= P |editor2-last= Davies |editor2-first= P |title=The Re-emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |year=2006}}</ref>。

[[Nobel prize in physics|Nobel laureate]] [[Philip Warren Anderson]] used the idea that [[symmetry breaking]] is an example of an emergent phenomenon in his 1972 ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' paper "More is different" to make an argument about the limitations of reductionism.<ref name=":17">[http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/anderson.pdf Link] {{cite journal|last=Anderson|first=P.W.|title=More is Different|journal=Science|volume=177|issue=4047| pages=393–396|year=1972|doi=10.1126/science.177.4047.393|pmid=17796623|bibcode=1972Sci...177..393A|s2cid=34548824|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/8019560143abeb6145ed95aa04ad8ddf9898178d}}</ref> One observation he made was that the sciences can be arranged roughly in a linear hierarchy—[[particle physics]], [[solid state physics]], [[chemistry]], [[molecular biology]], [[cellular biology]], [[physiology]], [[psychology]], [[social sciences]]—in that the elementary entities of one science obeys the principles of the science that precedes it in the hierarchy; yet this does not imply that one science is just an applied version of the science that precedes it. He writes that "At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry."

[[Nobel prize in physics|Nobel laureate]] [[Philip Warren Anderson]] used the idea that [[symmetry breaking]] is an example of an emergent phenomenon in his 1972 ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' paper "More is different" to make an argument about the limitations of reductionism. One observation he made was that the sciences can be arranged roughly in a linear hierarchy—[[particle physics]], [[solid state physics]], [[chemistry]], [[molecular biology]], [[cellular biology]], [[physiology]], [[psychology]], [[social sciences]]—in that the elementary entities of one science obeys the principles of the science that precedes it in the hierarchy; yet this does not imply that one science is just an applied version of the science that precedes it. He writes that "At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry."

诺贝尔经济学奖获得者菲利普·沃伦·安德森（Philip Warren Anderson）在他1972年发表在《科学》（Science）杂志的论文《More is different》中使用了对称性破缺是一个涌现现象的例子来论证还原论的局限性<ref name=":17" /> 。他观察到，科学可以大致按线性层次排列——粒子物理学、固体物理学、化学、分子生物学、细胞生物学、生理学、心理学、社会科学——一门科学的基本实体遵循在层次中先于它的科学原理的原则。然而，这并不意味着一门科学只是先于它的科学的应用版本。他写道: “在每一个阶段，全新的法则、概念和概括都是必要的，需要灵感和创造力，就像前一个阶段一样。心理学不是应用生物学，生物学也不是应用化学。”

诺贝尔经济学奖获得者菲利普·沃伦·安德森（Philip Warren Anderson）在他1972年发表在《科学》（Science）杂志的论文《More is different》中使用了对称性破缺是一个涌现现象的例子来论证还原论的局限性<ref name=":17">[http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/anderson.pdf Link] {{cite journal|last=Anderson|first=P.W.|title=More is Different|journal=Science|volume=177|issue=4047| pages=393–396|year=1972|doi=10.1126/science.177.4047.393|pmid=17796623|bibcode=1972Sci...177..393A|s2cid=34548824|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/8019560143abeb6145ed95aa04ad8ddf9898178d}}</ref>。他观察到，科学可以大致按线性层次排列——粒子物理学、固体物理学、化学、分子生物学、细胞生物学、生理学、心理学、社会科学——一门科学的基本实体遵循在层次中先于它的科学原理的原则。然而，这并不意味着一门科学只是先于它的科学的应用版本。他写道: “在每一个阶段，全新的法则、概念和概括都是必要的，需要灵感和创造力，就像前一个阶段一样。心理学不是应用生物学，生物学也不是应用化学。”

Disciplines such as [[cybernetics]] and [[systems theory]] imply non-reductionism, sometimes to the extent of explaining phenomena at a given level of hierarchy in terms of phenomena at a higher level, in a sense, the opposite of reductionism.<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html|title=Downward Causation|work=vub.ac.be}}</ref>

Disciplines such as [[cybernetics]] and [[systems theory]] imply non-reductionism, sometimes to the extent of explaining phenomena at a given level of hierarchy in terms of phenomena at a higher level, in a sense, the opposite of reductionism.

诸如控制论和系统论这样的学科隐含着非还原论，有时达到了用更高层次的现象来解释特定层次上的现象的程度，在某种意义上，这是还原论的对立面<ref name=":18" />。

诸如控制论和系统论这样的学科隐含着非还原论，有时达到了用更高层次的现象来解释特定层次上的现象的程度，在某种意义上，这是还原论的对立面<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/DOWNCAUS.html|title=Downward Causation|work=vub.ac.be}}</ref>。

== 在数学中 ==

== 在数学中 ==

In [[mathematics]], reductionism can be interpreted as the philosophy that all mathematics can (or ought to) be based on a common foundation, which for modern mathematics is usually [[axiomatic set theory]]. [[Ernst Zermelo]] was one of the major advocates of such an opinion; he also developed much of axiomatic set theory. It has been argued that the generally accepted method of justifying mathematical [[axioms]] by their usefulness in common practice can potentially weaken Zermelo's reductionist claim.<ref name=":19">{{cite journal |doi=10.1305/ndjfl/1093633905 |first=R. Gregory |last=Taylor |title=Zermelo, Reductionism, and the Philosophy of Mathematics |journal=Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic |volume=34 |issue=4 |year=1993 |pages=539–563 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In [[mathematics]], reductionism can be interpreted as the philosophy that all mathematics can (or ought to) be based on a common foundation, which for modern mathematics is usually [[axiomatic set theory]]. [[Ernst Zermelo]] was one of the major advocates of such an opinion; he also developed much of axiomatic set theory. It has been argued that the generally accepted method of justifying mathematical [[axioms]] by their usefulness in common practice can potentially weaken Zermelo's reductionist claim.

在数学中，还原论可以解释为所有数学都可以或应该建立在一个共同基础上的哲学，而对于现代数学来说，这个基础通常是公理化集合论。'''<u>策梅洛（Ernst Zermelo）</u>'''是这种观点的主要倡导者之一，他也对公理化集合论做出了许多发展。有人认为，用数学公理在普通实践中的有用性来证明数学公理的普遍接受的方法，可能会削弱'''<u>泽梅洛</u>'''的还原论主张<ref name=":19" />。

在数学中，还原论可以解释为所有数学都可以或应该建立在一个共同基础上的哲学，而对于现代数学来说，这个基础通常是公理化集合论。'''<u>策梅洛（Ernst Zermelo）</u>'''是这种观点的主要倡导者之一，他也对公理化集合论做出了许多发展。有人认为，用数学公理在普通实践中的有用性来证明数学公理的普遍接受的方法，可能会削弱'''<u>泽梅洛</u>'''的还原论主张<ref name=":19">{{cite journal |doi=10.1305/ndjfl/1093633905 |first=R. Gregory |last=Taylor |title=Zermelo, Reductionism, and the Philosophy of Mathematics |journal=Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic |volume=34 |issue=4 |year=1993 |pages=539–563 |doi-access=free }}</ref>。

Jouko Väänänen has argued for [[second-order logic]] as a foundation for mathematics instead of set theory,<ref name=":20">{{cite journal |first=J. |last=Väänänen |title=Second-Order Logic and Foundations of Mathematics |journal=Bulletin of Symbolic Logic |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=504–520 |year=2001 |doi=10.2307/2687796 |jstor=2687796 |s2cid=7465054 }}</ref> whereas others have argued for [[category theory]] as a foundation for certain aspects of mathematics.<ref name=":21">{{cite journal |first=S. |last=Awodey |title=Structure in Mathematics and Logic: A Categorical Perspective |journal=Philos. Math. |series=Series III |volume=4 |issue=3 |year=1996 |pages=209–237 |doi=10.1093/philmat/4.3.209 }}</ref><ref name=":22">{{cite book |first=F. W. |last=Lawvere |chapter=The Category of Categories as a Foundation for Mathematics |title=Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra (La Jolla, Calif., 1965) |pages=1–20 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |location=New York |year=1966 }}</ref>

Jouko Väänänen has argued for [[second-order logic]] as a foundation for mathematics instead of set theory,whereas others have argued for [[category theory]] as a foundation for certain aspects of mathematics.

Jouko Väänänen 认为二阶逻辑是数学的基础，而不是集合论<ref name=":20" /> ，而其他人则认为范畴论是数学某些方面的基础<ref name=":21" /><ref name=":22" />。

Jouko Väänänen 认为二阶逻辑是数学的基础，而不是集合论<ref name=":20">{{cite journal |first=J. |last=Väänänen |title=Second-Order Logic and Foundations of Mathematics |journal=Bulletin of Symbolic Logic |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=504–520 |year=2001 |doi=10.2307/2687796 |jstor=2687796 |s2cid=7465054 }}</ref> ，而其他人则认为范畴论是数学某些方面的基础<ref name=":21">{{cite journal |first=S. |last=Awodey |title=Structure in Mathematics and Logic: A Categorical Perspective |journal=Philos. Math. |series=Series III |volume=4 |issue=3 |year=1996 |pages=209–237 |doi=10.1093/philmat/4.3.209 }}</ref><ref name=":22">{{cite book |first=F. W. |last=Lawvere |chapter=The Category of Categories as a Foundation for Mathematics |title=Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra (La Jolla, Calif., 1965) |pages=1–20 |publisher=Springer-Verlag |location=New York |year=1966 }}</ref>。

== 在宗教中 ==

== 在宗教中 ==

Religious reductionism generally attempts to explain religion by explaining it in terms of nonreligious causes. A few examples of reductionistic explanations for the presence of religion are: that religion can be reduced to humanity's conceptions of right and wrong, that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments, that religion is a way to explain the existence of a physical world, and that religion confers an enhanced survivability for members of a group and so is reinforced by [[natural selection]].<ref name=":25">{{cite web|url=http://evolution-of-religion.com/|title=Evolution-of-religion.com}}</ref> Anthropologists [[Edward Burnett Tylor]] and [[James George Frazer]] employed some [[Metatheories of religion in the social sciences#Edward Burnett Tylor and James George Frazer|religious reductionist arguments]].<ref name=":26">Strenski, Ivan. "Classic Twentieth-Century Theorist of the Study of Religion: Defending the Inner Sanctum of Religious Experience or Storming It." Pages 176–209 in ''Thinking About Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion''. Malden: Blackwell, 2006.</ref>

Religious reductionism generally attempts to explain religion by explaining it in terms of nonreligious causes. A few examples of reductionistic explanations for the presence of religion are: that religion can be reduced to humanity's conceptions of right and wrong, that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments, that religion is a way to explain the existence of a physical world, and that religion confers an enhanced survivability for members of a group and so is reinforced by [[natural selection]]. Anthropologists [[Edward Burnett Tylor]] and [[James George Frazer]] employed some [[Metatheories of religion in the social sciences#Edward Burnett Tylor and James George Frazer|religious reductionist arguments]].

宗教还原论通常试图用非宗教的原因来解释宗教。关于宗教存在的还原论解释的几个例子是：宗教可以被还原为人类是或非的概念，从根本上说，宗教是控制环境的一种原始尝试，宗教是解释物质世界存在的一种方式，宗教赋予一个群体成员更强的生存能力，自然选择也加强了这种能力<ref name=":25" />。人类学家爱德华·伯内特·泰勒（Edward Burnett tyler）和詹姆斯·弗雷泽（James George fraser）就采用了一些宗教还原论的观点<ref name=":26" />。

宗教还原论通常试图用非宗教的原因来解释宗教。关于宗教存在的还原论解释的几个例子是：宗教可以被还原为人类是或非的概念，从根本上说，宗教是控制环境的一种原始尝试，宗教是解释物质世界存在的一种方式，宗教赋予一个群体成员更强的生存能力，自然选择也加强了这种能力。<ref name=":25">{{cite web|url=http://evolution-of-religion.com/|title=Evolution-of-religion.com}}</ref>人类学家爱德华·伯内特·泰勒（Edward Burnett tyler）和詹姆斯·弗雷泽（James George fraser）就采用了一些宗教还原论的观点<ref name=":26">Strenski, Ivan. "Classic Twentieth-Century Theorist of the Study of Religion: Defending the Inner Sanctum of Religious Experience or Storming It." Pages 176–209 in ''Thinking About Religion: An Historical Introduction to Theories of Religion''. Malden: Blackwell, 2006.</ref>

。

== 在语言学中 ==

== 在语言学中 ==

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

Linguistic reductionism is the idea that everything can be described or explained by a language with a limited number of concepts, and combinations of those concepts.<ref name=":27">{{cite web|url=http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_reductionism.html|title=Reductionism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy|website=www.philosophybasics.com}}</ref> An example is the language [[Toki Pona]].

Linguistic reductionism is the idea that everything can be described or explained by a language with a limited number of concepts, and combinations of those concepts. An example is the language [[Toki Pona]].

语言还原论的观点是，任何事物都可以只用有限数量的概念，以及这些概念的组合来描述或解释<ref name=":27" /> 。一个例子就是道本语。

语言还原论的观点是，任何事物都可以只用有限数量的概念，以及这些概念的组合来描述或解释<ref name=":27">{{cite web|url=http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_reductionism.html|title=Reductionism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy|website=www.philosophybasics.com}}</ref>。一个例子就是道本语。

</blockquote>  

</blockquote>  

== 在哲学中 ==  

== 在哲学中 ==  

The concept of [[downward causation]] poses an alternative to reductionism within philosophy. This opinion is developed by [[Peter Bøgh Andersen]], [[Claus Emmeche]], [[Niels Ole Finnemann]], and [[Peder Voetmann Christiansen]], among others. These philosophers explore ways in which one can talk about phenomena at a larger-scale level of organization exerting causal influence on a smaller-scale level, and find that some, but not all proposed types of downward causation are compatible with science. In particular, they find that constraint is one way in which downward causation can operate.<ref name=":28">P.B. Andersen, C. Emmeche, N.O. Finnemann, P.V. Christiansen, ''Downward Causation: Minds, Bodies and Matter'', Aarhus University Press ({{ISBN|87-7288-814-8}}) (2001)</ref> The notion of causality as constraint has also been explored as a way to shed light on scientific concepts such as [[self-organization]], [[natural selection]], [[adaptation]], and control.<ref name=":29">{{cite web|url=http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/AJuarrero.html |first1=A |last1=Juarrero |title=Causality as Constraint |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612013407/http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/AJuarrero.html |archive-date=June 12, 2011 }}</ref>

The concept of [[downward causation]] poses an alternative to reductionism within philosophy. This opinion is developed by [[Peter Bøgh Andersen]], [[Claus Emmeche]], [[Niels Ole Finnemann]], and [[Peder Voetmann Christiansen]], among others. These philosophers explore ways in which one can talk about phenomena at a larger-scale level of organization exerting causal influence on a smaller-scale level, and find that some, but not all proposed types of downward causation are compatible with science. In particular, they find that constraint is one way in which downward causation can operate. The notion of causality as constraint has also been explored as a way to shed light on scientific concepts such as [[self-organization]], [[natural selection]], [[adaptation]], and control.

在哲学中，向下因果关系的概念提供了一种还原论的替代方法。这个观点是由彼得·博格·安徒生（[[Peter Bøgh Andersen]]），克劳斯（[[Claus Emmeche]]），尼尔斯·奥立（Niels Ole Finnemann），和 彼得·克里斯蒂安森（Peder Voetmann Christiansen ）等人提出的。这些哲学家探索人们可以在更大范围的组织层面上谈论的现象，在更小范围的组织层面上施加因果影响的方式，并发现一些(但不是所有)向下的因果类型与科学是相容的<ref name=":28" /> 。特别地，他们发现约束是向下因果关系的一种运作方式。因果关系作为约束的概念也作为一种阐明科学概念的方式，例如自组织、自然选择、适应和控制<ref name=":29" />。

在哲学中，向下因果关系的概念提供了一种还原论的替代方法。这个观点是由彼得·博格·安徒生（[[Peter Bøgh Andersen]]），克劳斯（[[Claus Emmeche]]），尼尔斯·奥立（Niels Ole Finnemann），和 彼得·克里斯蒂安森（Peder Voetmann Christiansen ）等人提出的。这些哲学家探索人们可以在更大范围的组织层面上谈论的现象，在更小范围的组织层面上施加因果影响的方式，并发现一些(但不是所有)向下的因果类型与科学是相容的。<ref name=":28">P.B. Andersen, C. Emmeche, N.O. Finnemann, P.V. Christiansen, ''Downward Causation: Minds, Bodies and Matter'', Aarhus University Press ({{ISBN|87-7288-814-8}}) (2001)</ref>特别地，他们发现约束是向下因果关系的一种运作方式。因果关系作为约束的概念也作为一种阐明科学概念的方式，例如自组织、自然选择、适应和控制。<ref name=":29">{{cite web|url=http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/AJuarrero.html |first1=A |last1=Juarrero |title=Causality as Constraint |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612013407/http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Einmag_Abstr/AJuarrero.html |archive-date=June 12, 2011 }}</ref>

=== 自由意志 ===

=== 自由意志 ===

Philosophers of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] worked to insulate human free will from reductionism. [[Descartes]] separated the material world of mechanical necessity from the world of mental free will. German philosophers introduced the concept of the "[[Noumenon|noumenal]]" realm that is not governed by the deterministic laws of "[[Phenomena (philosophy)|phenomenal]]" nature, where every event is completely determined by chains of causality.<ref name=":30">Paul Guyer, "18th Century German Aesthetics," [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-18th-german/ ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'']</ref> The most influential formulation was by [[Immanuel Kant]], who distinguished between the causal deterministic framework the mind imposes on the world—the phenomenal realm—and the world as it exists for itself, the noumenal realm, which, as he believed, included free will. To insulate theology from reductionism, 19th century post-Enlightenment German theologians, especially [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] and [[Albrecht Ritschl]], used the [[Romanticism|Romantic]] method of basing religion on the human spirit, so that it is a person's feeling or sensibility about spiritual matters that comprises religion.<ref name=":31">Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science'' (2006) p. 161</ref>

Philosophers of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] worked to insulate human free will from reductionism. [[Descartes]] separated the material world of mechanical necessity from the world of mental free will. German philosophers introduced the concept of the "[[Noumenon|noumenal]]" realm that is not governed by the deterministic laws of "[[Phenomena (philosophy)|phenomenal]]" nature, where every event is completely determined by chains of causality. The most influential formulation was by [[Immanuel Kant]], who distinguished between the causal deterministic framework the mind imposes on the world—the phenomenal realm—and the world as it exists for itself, the noumenal realm, which, as he believed, included free will. To insulate theology from reductionism, 19th century post-Enlightenment German theologians, especially [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] and [[Albrecht Ritschl]], used the [[Romanticism|Romantic]] method of basing religion on the human spirit, so that it is a person's feeling or sensibility about spiritual matters that comprises religion.

 

启蒙运动时期的哲学家致力于将人类的自由意志与还原论分割开来。笛卡尔将机械必然性的物质世界与精神自由意志的世界分开。德国哲学家引入了“本体”领域的概念，这一领域不受“现象”自然的决定论法则的控制，在“现象”自然中，每一个事件都完全由一系列因果关系所决定<ref name=":30">Paul Guyer, "18th Century German Aesthetics," [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-18th-german/ ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'']</ref>。最有影响力的是伊曼努尔·康德(Immanuel Kant)，他区分了思维强加于世界(现象界)的因果决定论框架和它自己存在的世界(本体界)，他认为本体界包括自由意志。为了将神学与还原论相互剥离开来，19世纪后启蒙时代的德国神学家们，特别是施莱马赫(Friedrich Schleiermacher)和阿尔布雷希特·里施(Albrecht Ritschl)采用了浪漫主义的方法，将宗教建立在人类精神的基础上——一个人对精神事物的感觉或情感形成了宗教<ref name=":31">Philip Clayton and Zachary Simpson, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science'' (2006) p. 161</ref>

启蒙运动时期的哲学家致力于将人类的自由意志与还原论分割开来。笛卡尔将机械必然性的物质世界与精神自由意志的世界分开。德国哲学家引入了“本体”领域的概念，这一领域不受“现象”自然的决定论法则的控制，在“现象”自然中，每一个事件都完全由一系列因果关系所决定<ref name=":30" /> 。最有影响力的是伊曼努尔·康德(Immanuel Kant)，他区分了思维强加于世界(现象界)的因果决定论框架和它自己存在的世界(本体界)，他认为本体界包括自由意志。为了将神学与还原论相互剥离开来，19世纪后启蒙时代的德国神学家们，特别是施莱马赫(Friedrich Schleiermacher)和阿尔布雷希特·里施(Albrecht Ritschl)采用了浪漫主义的方法，将宗教建立在人类精神的基础上——一个人对精神事物的感觉或情感形成了宗教<ref name=":31" />。

。

=== 因果关系 ===

=== 因果关系 ===

Most common philosophical understandings of [[Causality|causation]] involve reducing it to some collection of non-causal facts. Opponents of these reductionist views have given arguments that the non-causal facts in question are insufficient to determine the causal facts.<ref name="Carroll">{{cite book |title=The Oxford Handbook of Causation |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xGnZtUtG-nIC&pg=PA292 |page=292 |author=John W Carroll |chapter=Chapter 13: Anti-reductionism |isbn=978-0-19-927973-9 |publisher=Oxford Handbooks Online |year=2009 |editor1=Helen Beebee |editor2=Christopher Hitchcock |editor3=Peter Menzies }}</ref>

Most common philosophical understandings of [[Causality|causation]] involve reducing it to some collection of non-causal facts. Opponents of these reductionist views have given arguments that the non-causal facts in question are insufficient to determine the causal facts.

大多数关于因果关系的哲学理解都将因果关系还原为一些非因果事实的集合。对这些还原论观点持反对意见的人认为，所讨论的非因果事实不足以确定因果事实<ref name="Carroll" />。

大多数关于因果关系的哲学理解都将因果关系还原为一些非因果事实的集合。对这些还原论观点持反对意见的人认为，所讨论的非因果事实不足以确定因果事实<ref name="Carroll">{{cite book |title=The Oxford Handbook of Causation |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xGnZtUtG-nIC&pg=PA292 |page=292 |author=John W Carroll |chapter=Chapter 13: Anti-reductionism |isbn=978-0-19-927973-9 |publisher=Oxford Handbooks Online |year=2009 |editor1=Helen Beebee |editor2=Christopher Hitchcock |editor3=Peter Menzies }}</ref>。

=== 碎片主义 ===

=== 碎片主义 ===

An alternative term for ontological reductionism is ''fragmentalism'',<ref>{{cite journal|author=Kukla A|title=Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science|journal=Philosophy of Science|volume=63|issue=1|pages=S298–S305|year=1996|doi=10.1086/289964|jstor=188539|s2cid=171074337}}</ref> often used in a [[pejorative]] sense.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Pope ML|title=Personal construction of formal knowledge|journal=Interchange|volume=13|issue=4|pages=3–14|year=1982|doi=10.1007/BF01191417|s2cid=198195182}}</ref> [[Anti-realism|Anti-realists]] use the term ''fragmentalism'' in arguments that the world does not exist of separable [[Non-physical entity|entities]], instead consisting of wholes. For example, advocates of this idea claim that:

An alternative term for ontological reductionism is ''fragmentalism'', often used in a [[pejorative]] sense. [[Anti-realism|Anti-realists]] use the term ''fragmentalism'' in arguments that the world does not exist of separable [[Non-physical entity|entities]], instead consisting of wholes. For example, advocates of this idea claim that:

本体论还原论的另一个术语是碎片主义，通常带有贬义色彩。反现实主义者使用碎片主义这个术语来论证世界不是由可分离的实体存在的，而是由整体组成的。例如，这种观点的支持者声称:

本体论还原论的另一个术语是碎片主义，通常带有贬义色彩<ref>{{cite journal|author=Kukla A|title=Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science|journal=Philosophy of Science|volume=63|issue=1|pages=S298–S305|year=1996|doi=10.1086/289964|jstor=188539|s2cid=171074337}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Pope ML|title=Personal construction of formal knowledge|journal=Interchange|volume=13|issue=4|pages=3–14|year=1982|doi=10.1007/BF01191417|s2cid=198195182}}</ref>。反现实主义者使用碎片主义这个术语来论证世界不是由可分离的实体存在的，而是由整体组成的。例如，这种观点的支持者声称:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

The linear deterministic approach to nature and technology promoted a fragmented perception of reality, and a loss of the ability to foresee, to adequately evaluate, in all their complexity, global crises in ecology, civilization and education.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~isre/NEWSLETTER/vol6no2/global.htm|title=Global education as a trend reflecting the problems of today and meeting the requirements of tomorrow|website=Indiana University Bloomington|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19991003182135/http://www.indiana.edu/~isre/NEWSLETTER/vol6no2/global.htm|archive-date=3 October 1999|author=Anatoly P. Liferov}}</ref>

The linear deterministic approach to nature and technology promoted a fragmented perception of reality, and a loss of the ability to foresee, to adequately evaluate, in all their complexity, global crises in ecology, civilization and education.

 

对自然和技术的线性决定论方法促进了对现实的碎片化感知，并使人们丧失了预见和充分评估全球生态、文明和教育危机复杂性的能力。<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indiana.edu/~isre/NEWSLETTER/vol6no2/global.htm|title=Global education as a trend reflecting the problems of today and meeting the requirements of tomorrow|website=Indiana University Bloomington|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19991003182135/http://www.indiana.edu/~isre/NEWSLETTER/vol6no2/global.htm|archive-date=3 October 1999|author=Anatoly P. Liferov}}</ref>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

这些观点也引发了对科学方法的许多批评：

这些观点也引发了对科学方法的许多批评：

<blockquote>The scientific method only acknowledges monophasic consciousness. The method is a specialized system that emphasizes studying small and distinctive parts in isolation, which results in fragmented knowledge.<ref name="Lumpkin">[http://www.bioregionalanimism.com/2006/12/is-polyphasic-consciousness-necessary.html Tara W. Lumpkin, ''Perceptual Diversity: Is Polyphasic Consciousness Necessary for Global Survival?'' December 28, 2006]</ref>

<blockquote>The scientific method only acknowledges monophasic consciousness. The method is a specialized system that emphasizes studying small and distinctive parts in isolation, which results in fragmented knowledge.

科学方法只承认单相意识（monophasic consciousness）。这种方法强调孤立地研究小而独特的部分特定系统，从而导致知识的碎片化<ref name="Lumpkin" />。</blockquote>

科学方法只承认单相意识（monophasic consciousness）。这种方法强调孤立地研究小而独特的部分特定系统，从而导致知识的碎片化<ref name="Lumpkin">[http://www.bioregionalanimism.com/2006/12/is-polyphasic-consciousness-necessary.html Tara W. Lumpkin, ''Perceptual Diversity: Is Polyphasic Consciousness Necessary for Global Survival?'' December 28, 2006]</ref>。

</blockquote>

== 替代方案 ==

== 替代方案 ==

The development of [[systems thinking]] has provided methods that seek to describe issues in a [[holism|holistic]] rather than a reductionist way, and many scientists use a [[Holism in science|holistic paradigm]].<ref name=":33">[[Dossey, Larry]]. ''Reinventing Medicine: Beyond Mind-Body to a New Era of Healing.'' ({{ISBN|0-06-251622-1}}) HarperSanFrancisco. (1999)</ref> When the terms are used in a scientific context, holism and reductionism refer primarily to what sorts of [[scientific model|models]] or theories offer valid explanations of the natural world; the scientific method of falsifying hypotheses, checking empirical data against theory, is largely unchanged, but the method guides which theories are considered.

The development of [[systems thinking]] has provided methods that seek to describe issues in a [[holism|holistic]] rather than a reductionist way, and many scientists use a [[Holism in science|holistic paradigm]]. When the terms are used in a scientific context, holism and reductionism refer primarily to what sorts of [[scientific model|models]] or theories offer valid explanations of the natural world; the scientific method of falsifying hypotheses, checking empirical data against theory, is largely unchanged, but the method guides which theories are considered.

系统思维的发展提供了寻求以整体而非简化的方式来描述问题的方法，并且许多科学家开始使用整体范式<ref name=":33" />。在科学语境中使用这些术语时，整体论和还原论主要指的是什么样的模型或理论提供了对自然世界的有效解释。证伪假设、根据理论检验经验数据的科学方法在大体上是不变的，但这些方法指导哪些理论是值得考虑的。

系统思维的发展提供了寻求以整体而非简化的方式来描述问题的方法，并且许多科学家开始使用整体范式<ref name=":33">[[Dossey, Larry]]. ''Reinventing Medicine: Beyond Mind-Body to a New Era of Healing.'' ({{ISBN|0-06-251622-1}}) HarperSanFrancisco. (1999)</ref>。在科学语境中使用这些术语时，整体论和还原论主要指的是什么样的模型或理论提供了对自然世界的有效解释。证伪假设、根据理论检验经验数据的科学方法在大体上是不变的，但这些方法指导哪些理论是值得考虑的。

[[Ecologist]] [[Sven Erik Jorgensen]] makes both theoretical and practical arguments for a [[holistic]] method in certain topics of science, especially [[ecology]]. He argues that many systems are so complex that they can ever be described in complete detail. In analogy to the Heisenberg [[uncertainty principle]] in physics, he argues that many interesting ecological phenomena cannot be replicated in laboratory conditions, and so cannot be measured or observed without changing the system in some way. He also indicates the importance of inter-connectedness in biological systems. He believes that science can only progress by outlining questions that are unanswerable and by using models that do not try to explain everything in terms of smaller hierarchical levels of organization, but instead model them on the scale of the system itself, taking into account some (but not all) factors from levels higher and lower in the hierarchy.<ref name=":34">S. E. Jørgensen, ''Integration of Ecosystem Theories: A Pattern'', 3rd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ({{ISBN|1-4020-0651-9}}) (2002) Chapters 1 & 2.</ref>

[[Ecologist]] [[Sven Erik Jorgensen]] makes both theoretical and practical arguments for a [[holistic]] method in certain topics of science, especially [[ecology]]. He argues that many systems are so complex that they can ever be described in complete detail. In analogy to the Heisenberg [[uncertainty principle]] in physics, he argues that many interesting ecological phenomena cannot be replicated in laboratory conditions, and so cannot be measured or observed without changing the system in some way. He also indicates the importance of inter-connectedness in biological systems. He believes that science can only progress by outlining questions that are unanswerable and by using models that do not try to explain everything in terms of smaller hierarchical levels of organization, but instead model them on the scale of the system itself, taking into account some (but not all) factors from levels higher and lower in the hierarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

{{Reflist|refs=

生态学家斯文 · 埃里克 · 乔根森（[[Sven Erik Jorgensen]] ）在某些科学领域，特别是生态学领域，为整体方法提供了理论和实践两方面的论据。他认为，许多系统是如此复杂，以至于永远无法完全详细地描述它们。与物理学中的海森堡不确定性原理类似，他认为许多有趣的生态现象无法在实验室条件下复制，因此如果不以某种方式改变系统，就无法测量或观察。他还指出了生物系统中相互联系的重要性。他认为，科学只能通过概述无法回答的问题，并使用模型来进步，并且这些模型不是试图从较小的组织层次来解释一切，而是根据系统本身的规模来模拟它们，同时考虑到来自层次结构中更高和更低层次的一些（但不是全部）因素<ref name=":34">S. E. Jørgensen, ''Integration of Ecosystem Theories: A Pattern'', 3rd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ({{ISBN|1-4020-0651-9}}) (2002) Chapters 1 & 2.</ref>。

{通货再膨胀 | 参考文献 =  

在认知心理学领域，乔治 · 凯利（George Kelly）发展了“构建替代主义”作为个人建构心理学的一种形式，也是他所认为的“累积碎片主义”的替代。在这一理论中，知识被看作是外部世界的成功的心理模型的构建，而不是独立的“真理金块”的累积<ref name=":35">{{cite journal|vauthors=Pope ML, Watts M |title=Constructivist Goggles: Implications for Process in Teaching and Learning Physics|journal=Eur. J. Phys.|volume=9|pages=101–109|year=1988|doi=10.1088/0143-0807/9/2/004|issue=2|bibcode = 1988EJPh....9..101P }}</ref>