Photo: Overgrazing in Eastern Washington. Copyright 2007 Delena Norris-Tull
The Reductionist Approach to Science Limits Innovation
Capra (1982, p. 40-41) states, “The division between mind and matter led to a view of the universe as a mechanical system consisting of separate objects, which in turn were reduced to fundamental material building blocks whose properties and interactions were thought to completely determine all natural phenomena. This Cartesian view of nature was further extended to living organisms, which were regarded as machines constructed from separate parts…. [Such] a mechanistic conception of the world is still at the basis of most of our sciences and continues to have a tremendous influence on many aspects of our lives…It is now becoming apparent that overemphasis on the scientific method and on rational, analytical thinking has led to attitudes that are profoundly antiecological. In truth, the understanding of ecosystems is hindered by the very nature of the rational mind. Rational thinking is linear, whereas ecological awareness arises from an intuition of nonlinear systems. One of the most difficult things for people in our culture to understand is the fact that if you do something that is good, then more of the same will not necessarily be better. This, to me, is the essence of ecological thinking. Ecosystems sustain themselves in a dynamic balance based on cycles and fluctuations, which are nonlinear processes. Linear enterprises, such as indefinite economic and technological growth… will necessarily interfere with the natural balance and, sooner or later, will cause severe damage.”
“Descartes’ view of living organisms has had a decisive influence on the development of the life sciences. The careful description of the mechanisms that make up living organisms has been the major task of biologists, physicians, and psychologists for the past three hundred years. The Cartesian approach has been very successful, especially in biology, but it has also limited the directions of scientific research. The problem is that scientists, encouraged by their success in treating living organisms as machines, tend to believe that they are nothing but machines. The adverse consequences of this reductionist fallacy have become especially apparent in medicine, where the adherence to the Cartesian model of the human body as a clockwork has prevented doctors from understanding many of today’s major illnesses” (Capra, p. 62).
“In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world view emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic, and ecological. It also might also be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisible, dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process” (Capra, p. 77-78).
“The discovery of evolution in biology forced scientists [biologists] to abandon the Cartesian conception of the world as a machine that had emerged fully constructed from the hands of its Creator. Instead, the universe had to be pictured as an evolving and ever changing system in which complex structures developed from simpler forms” (Capra, p. 72).
Unfortunately, “In biology the Cartesian view of living organisms as machines, constructed from separate parts, still provides the dominant conceptual framework. Although Descartes’ simple mechanistic biology could not be carried very far and had to be modified considerably during the subsequent three hundred years, the belief that all aspects of living organisms can be understood by reducing them to the smallest constituents, and by studying the mechanisms through which these interact, lies at the very basis of most contemporary biological thinking” (Capra, p. 102).
References:
Next Sections:
The Reductionist Approach to Science Limits Innovation
Capra (1982, p. 40-41) states, “The division between mind and matter led to a view of the universe as a mechanical system consisting of separate objects, which in turn were reduced to fundamental material building blocks whose properties and interactions were thought to completely determine all natural phenomena. This Cartesian view of nature was further extended to living organisms, which were regarded as machines constructed from separate parts…. [Such] a mechanistic conception of the world is still at the basis of most of our sciences and continues to have a tremendous influence on many aspects of our lives…It is now becoming apparent that overemphasis on the scientific method and on rational, analytical thinking has led to attitudes that are profoundly antiecological. In truth, the understanding of ecosystems is hindered by the very nature of the rational mind. Rational thinking is linear, whereas ecological awareness arises from an intuition of nonlinear systems. One of the most difficult things for people in our culture to understand is the fact that if you do something that is good, then more of the same will not necessarily be better. This, to me, is the essence of ecological thinking. Ecosystems sustain themselves in a dynamic balance based on cycles and fluctuations, which are nonlinear processes. Linear enterprises, such as indefinite economic and technological growth… will necessarily interfere with the natural balance and, sooner or later, will cause severe damage.”
“Descartes’ view of living organisms has had a decisive influence on the development of the life sciences. The careful description of the mechanisms that make up living organisms has been the major task of biologists, physicians, and psychologists for the past three hundred years. The Cartesian approach has been very successful, especially in biology, but it has also limited the directions of scientific research. The problem is that scientists, encouraged by their success in treating living organisms as machines, tend to believe that they are nothing but machines. The adverse consequences of this reductionist fallacy have become especially apparent in medicine, where the adherence to the Cartesian model of the human body as a clockwork has prevented doctors from understanding many of today’s major illnesses” (Capra, p. 62).
“In contrast to the mechanistic Cartesian view of the world, the world view emerging from modern physics can be characterized by words like organic, holistic, and ecological. It also might also be called a systems view, in the sense of general systems theory. The universe is no longer seen as a machine, made up of a multitude of objects, but has to be pictured as one indivisible, dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process” (Capra, p. 77-78).
“The discovery of evolution in biology forced scientists [biologists] to abandon the Cartesian conception of the world as a machine that had emerged fully constructed from the hands of its Creator. Instead, the universe had to be pictured as an evolving and ever changing system in which complex structures developed from simpler forms” (Capra, p. 72).
Unfortunately, “In biology the Cartesian view of living organisms as machines, constructed from separate parts, still provides the dominant conceptual framework. Although Descartes’ simple mechanistic biology could not be carried very far and had to be modified considerably during the subsequent three hundred years, the belief that all aspects of living organisms can be understood by reducing them to the smallest constituents, and by studying the mechanisms through which these interact, lies at the very basis of most contemporary biological thinking” (Capra, p. 102).
References:
- Capra, F. (1982). The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York: Bantam Books.
Next Sections: