What is another word for reductionism?

Pronunciation: [ɹɪdˈʌkʃənˌɪzəm] (IPA)

Reductionism refers to the tendency to simplify complex phenomena into separate, smaller parts in order to better understand them. Several synonyms exist for this term, such as simplification, systemization, fragmentation, and compartmentalization. Simplification involves breaking down a complex system into its most basic components for easier analysis. Systemization refers to organizing the system or process into logical and manageable parts. Fragmentation refers to the creation of separate parts where there was once unification. Finally, compartmentalization is a form of reductionism where different aspects of a system are isolated from each other to examine them individually. All of these synonyms have the common goal of simplifying complex systems for easier comprehension.

What are the hypernyms for Reductionism?

A hypernym is a word with a broad meaning that encompasses more specific words called hyponyms.

What are the hyponyms for Reductionism?

Hyponyms are more specific words categorized under a broader term, known as a hypernym.

Famous quotes with Reductionism

  • [A] is … an exception to the principle that all design, and apparent design, is ultimately the result of mindless, motiveless mechanicity. A , in contrast, is a subprocess or special feature of a design process that can be demonstrated to permit the local speeding up of the basic, slow process of natural selection, that can be demonstrated to be itself the predictable (or retroactively explicable) product of the basic process. … [T]he physicist Steven Weinberg, in (1992) … distinguishes between uncompromising reductionism (a bad thing) and compromising reductionism (which he ringingly endorses). Here is my own version. We must distinguish reductionism, which is in general a good thing, from , which is not. The difference, in the context of Darwin's theory, is simple: greedy reductionists think that everything can be explained without cranes; good reductionists think that everything can be explained without skyhooks.
    Daniel Dennett
  • From what can "ought" be derived. The most compelling answer is this: ethics must be based on an appreciation of human nature — on a sense of what a human being is or might be, and on what a human being might want to have or want to be. If is naturalism, then naturalism is no fallacy. No one could seriously deny that ethics is responsive to such facts about human nature. We may just disagree about where to look for the most compelling facts about human nature -n novels, in religious texts, in psychological experiments, in biological or anthropological investigations. The fallacy is not naturalism but, rather, any simple-minded attempt to rush from facts to values. In other words, the fallacy is reductionism of values to facts, rather than reductionism considered more circumspectly, as the attempt to unify our world-view so that out ethical principles don't clash irrationally with the way the world .
    Daniel Dennett
  • When one is aligned with the purpose of service, acts that seem exceptionally courageous to others are a matter of course. When one experiences the world as abundant, then acts of generosity are natural, since there is no doubt about continued supply. When one sees other people as reflections of oneself, forgiveness becomes second nature, as one realizes “But for the grace of God, so go I.” When one appreciates the order, beauty, mystery, and connectedness of the universe, a deep joy and cheerfulness arises that nothing can shake. When one sees time as abundant and life as infinite, one develops superhuman patience. When one lets go of the limitations of reductionism, objectivity, and determinism, technologies become possible that the science of separation cannot countenance. When one lets go of the story of the discrete and separate self, amazing intuitive and perceptual capabilities emerge from lifelong latency.
    Charles Eisenstein
  • Gödel's theorem shows conclusively that in pure mathematics reductionism does not work. To decide whether a mathematical statement is true, it is not sufficient to reduce the statement to marks on paper and to study the behavior of the marks. Except in trivial cases, you can decide the truth of a statement only by studying its meaning and its context in the larger world of mathematical ideas.
    Freeman Dyson
  • Simple rules can have complex consequences. simple rule has such a wealth of implications that it is worth examining in detail. It is the far from self-evident guiding principle of reductionism and of most modern investigations into cosmic complexity. reductionism will not be truly successful until physicists and cosmologists demonstrate that the large-scale phenomena of the world arise from fundamental physics alone. This lofty goal is still out of reach. There is uncertainty not only in how physics generates the structures of our world but also in what the truly fundamental rules of physics are.
    William Poundstone

Word of the Day

non-derivable
The word "non-derivable" refers to something that cannot be obtained through logical deduction or inference. Its antonyms include terms like "deducible," "inferable," and "derivabl...