登陆注册
10466300000003

第3章

Thales's Well The world in a drop of water

In the summer of 1999, Cornell University published research purporting to show that love really is a drug. To be precise, it is a cocktail of dopamine, phenylethylamine and oxytocin in the bloodstream that produces the sensation we call infatuation. Love, the researchers argued, was in fact a chemically induced form of insanity. This condition lasts until the body builds up an immunity to the substances involved, which is usually just long enough to meet, mate and raise a child to early infancy. The theory sounds dubious, if not downright offensive. Love, we feel, is the most important thing that can happen to a person and should be placed on a pedestal, not in a syringe with which to inject the loveless. Cornell University's conclusions were based on the principle of 'reductionism': the thought that things can be understood by boiling them down to their component parts, or that complex, large-scale processes can be understood in terms of simpler ones. The research may be overturned sooner or later, but if it survives it will not be the first time our illusions have been dispelled by reductionist thinking.

Another example of reductionism is the belief that tonsillitis is caused by a certain kind of bacterium that has invaded the body, and that the best way to treat the illness is to tackle the germ directly by administering antibiotics. An alternative tactic – though not one advised by many Western doctors – would be to regard the illness as a malady of the whole body, caused, perhaps, by an 'imbalance' in the individual's entire system. Such a 'holistic' approach will suggest various treatments that may or may not be effective. In very general cases of poor health, a holistic view of the situation may be the most sensible one, or at least an important accompaniment to the reductive approach. Mild heart conditions, for instance, are sometimes treated not with drugs, but by the patient giving up smoking, cutting down their cholesterol intake and taking regular exercise. Even this advice, however, is the product of reductionist investigations into body chemistry and physiology.

Despite the scientific advances it has given us, reductionism is something of a dirty word today. Some of us think that in attempting to understand the universe, we sully it. What it took God divine grace to create, we inspect through intrusive microscopes and disseminate in barbarous human tongues. Armed with the new genetic sciences, a botanist can claim to have decoded the essence of a rose in the plant's genome. He or she would be given short shrift by poets such as William Blake, who famously complained that science 'murders to dissect', or the nineteenth-century aesthete Walter Pater, who wrote that a scientist's garden would have 'written labels fluttering on the stalks for blooms'. Even if we do not all recoil so violently from reductionism, many of us feel instinctively that it must deal in crude simplifications, or works to 'bring nature down to our level'. But our level is the only one we have, and there need not be anything wrong with it. The American physicist Richard Feynman argued that we should not be unduly modest about our faculties, remarking that, as a scientist, he could not only appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a flower, but also marvel at its intricate biochemical structures. At the same time, however, we have suffered the follies of Freud and Marx, who reduced too much of human experience to sex and economics respectively. Reduction is a tool that can be misused, but we must remember that it gave us space travel and the Human Genome Project.

The first reductionist philosopher – and also the first Western philosopher of any description – was Thales, a Greek born around 636 BC at Miletus in Asia Minor (now Turkey). Thales was one of the Seven Sages, the men of the sixth and seventh centuries BC who were renowned for their wisdom as rulers, lawgivers and counsellors. Their maxims were inscribed on the walls of the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Across the ancient world, mosaics were reproduced depicting their aged, bearded heads alongside such phrases as 'Know thyself' and 'Nothing in excess'. Thales travelled as far as Egypt and Babylonia to gather knowledge from other cultures. When he returned home and offered his own contribution to knowledge, the Greeks hailed him as the founder of science, mathematics and philosophy. Part of his fame stemmed from a legend told one hundred and fifty years later by the historian Herodotus. Using the astronomy he had learned in the East (or, according to other authorities, by making a lucky guess), Thales successfully predicted that there would be an eclipse of the sun in 585 BC. On that day, the armies of Mede and Lydia were marching into battle against one another. They interpreted the eclipse as a warning from the gods and quickly broke off hostilities to sign a peace treaty. Modern astronomers have shown that the eclipse must have occurred on 28 May. This means that the aborted battle is the only event in the ancient world that we can date precisely.

Plato (428–347 BC) tells the story of how Thales was walking along studying the stars one evening when he fell down a well. A pretty servant girl heard the philosopher's cries and helped him out of the well, but not without quipping that Thales was a man 'who studies the stars yet cannot even see the ground at his feet'. This seems unfair, as Thales's head was not always in the clouds. There are several tales attesting to his practical skills. He urged a political union of the Greek city-states of Ionia as the only way to hold back the expansionist aims of their rival, Lydia. Though the authorities ignored him, his advice proved to be apposite over the centuries that followed. Aristotle (384-322 BC) relates that Thales was reproached for his poverty, which was taken to prove that philosophy is of no use to anyone. In response, Thales used his skills to predict that the following season's olive crop would be a bumper harvest. He then bought up all the olive presses in Miletus (presumably by taking out a loan) and made a fortune when the yield matched his expectations. Thales died at the age of seventy-eight of heat exhaustion while watching an athletics match. The inscription on his tomb read: 'Here in a narrow tomb great Thales lies; yet his renown for wisdom reached the skies.'

There is no evidence that Thales wrote any books, but he apparently said that he would be satisfied if those who passed on his ideas attributed them to him rather than to themselves. Given his belief that the universe was made out of water, most of us would be more than pleased to oblige. Water, Thales argued, was the fundamental substance of which all others were composed. Matter was condensed water and air was evaporated water. The entire earth, he maintained, was a disc floating on a giant lake, the waves and ripples of which caused earthquakes. According to Aristotle, Thales's first inkling of this came from observing that water was essential to all forms of life in the natural world. Thales's theory seems a reasonable stab at the truth when we consider that water comes in solid, liquid and vaporous forms. Though mistaken, the idea was the first scientific hypothesis ever recorded.

Thales was making a grand reduction. The properties of all the objects in the world, be they metals, mountains, gases or people, were reducible to just one set of properties – those of water. So if you ground things finely enough, dissected them thinly enough or examined them closely enough, you would not find iron or stone or flesh, but water. It might seem strange that anyone would want to explain one thing in terms of another rather than treating it on its own terms, but this is how reduction proceeds. If we desire to understand the world, then this means putting things in terms we can understand. Reducing something is like translating it into a more intelligible language. After reduction, a phenomenon is easier to handle and less mysterious because components are simpler to comprehend than a whole system.

However, if simplification were the only aim, many of our modern-day reductions would be failures. As far as we know, Thales did not go into great detail as to exactly how water forms the various phenomena of the natural world, but at least water is a substance with which we are all well acquainted. The mathematics of modern atomic theory, on the other hand, is comprehensible only to a small group of people with the proper training. While reduction renders things more intelligible, this does not necessarily mean more intelligible to everyone. Since the common understanding of the many is so frequently replaced by the better understanding of the few, reductionism is bound to arouse a measure of distrust. This is compounded by the fact that, in terms of explanations, simpler often means more brutely physical, so that to be a reductionist is often to be a materialist. Reductionists are also hampered by an unfortunate choice of terms. All that reduction truly 'reduces' is the complexity of an explanation. Everything else to be explained about the phenomenon is preserved. However, this is only as long as there is a real phenomenon to reduce. Reductionists are more than happy to jettison such things as souls and gods which they might not believe in. Though simpler explanations are deemed lower' because they are closer to the most basic facts we know, we could equally well call them 'higher' because they rise above irrelevant and obfuscating details to cut to the essential truth of things. The hierarchy of knowledge and understanding that reductionism yields could then be viewed as an ordinary pyramid rather than an inverted one.

Since reduction is about simplification, there is always the risk of oversimplification. It pays, therefore, to be careful about what exactly is being reduced and just what explanatory powers the reduction has. The question has to be asked whether in reducing something we have merely eliminated it from our description of the world. The taste of apricots, for example, could be reduced to the interplay of the molecules of the fruit with the receptors in our palate. But does this not ignore the sensation of what apricots actually taste like? After all, someone could know about the chemical constituents of apricots without ever having eaten one. Even so, elimination might not be all bad. Human understanding progresses by two means: gathering facts to discover new phenomena, and drawing these phenomena together under the simplifying influence of reductive explanations. Sometimes we find that as soon as the available evidence has been adequately reduced, new data appears that casts that reduction into doubt and demands that we look at the whole of the phenomenon once again.

It is paradoxical that in order to understand familiar natural processes, such as why water evaporates when boiled, we need to consult lower' levels of organization and unfamiliar entities such as protons and electrons. It would be strange to suggest that the 'higher' levels of organization we are used to dealing with – that of clouds, cups of coffee and human tears – are in fact illusory. Scientific reductionists sometimes come perilously close to asserting this when they say that we are 'nothing but mounds of atoms'. The key words here are 'nothing but'. This is correct if we mean it in the same sense that a novel is 'nothing but' a collection of ink marks on paper or a brain is 'nothing but' an agglomeration of neurones. If humans are simply mounds of atoms, then this says less about the dusty origin of humanity than it does about the amazing potential of otherwise harmless-looking atoms.

However, there is another way in which a reductionist might claim that only the most basic levels of description denote what is truly real. Nature seems to make most of her big decisions on the microscopic level. As the American philosopher Jerry Fodor (1935-) remarked, there is no science of Tuesdays. Science recognizes only four forces: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold atomic nuclei together. The weak nuclear force has been shown to be a form of the electromagnetic force, and it is hoped that before long all the forces will be discovered to be aspects of a single unifying force. According to hard-core scientific reductionists, everything that happens is because of these forces and nothing else (especially not ethereal concepts like human intentions). They operate upon macroscopic objects such as cars because they work upon the atoms of which these are composed. To explain every natural process in terms of the operation of the four forces is to suggest that the only adequate explanations are those that refer to microscopic events. We might, for instance, say that a spell of hot weather caused a drought which caused the crops to fail. A truly accurate explanation, however, would speak of the increased agitation of air molecules rather than in mere metaphors such as 'heat'. If someone asks me how I got to the party and I say that I drove there, I would not expect to be corrected on the grounds that, in actual fact, I depressed a pedal and refined petroleum combusted to generate propulsion. I would be even more confused if my interrogator immediately began talking about chemical reactions and carbon compounds. The more drastic the reduction, the greater the need to show how it ties in with our ordinary concepts – otherwise we may not believe that the reductionist is talking about the same things as the rest of us. Something in our ordinary experience, be it the action of driving to the party or the taste of apricots in the canapés, must be preserved in a reduction for it to count as an explanation of something. Otherwise we have merely listened to a stand-alone speech on an irrelevant topic rather than an answer to a question about my means of transport. On the other hand, the reductionist's explanation may be more welcome if I had suffered a breakdown on the way because I had filled my car with the wrong kind of petrol.

The four forces of nature may underpin everything from the movement of the clouds to the recipe for lasagne, but a physicist's understanding of those forces would not itself enable one to predict the weather like a meteorologist or make pasta like a top Italian chef. (Perhaps in the future there will exist robot chefs with a complete knowledge of the fundamental forces along with a superhuman ability to utilize that knowledge. It might be possible for such a creature to concoct the perfect dish through brute force of number-crunching, but this would seem an unnecessarily long-winded way to go about one of life's simple pleasures.) On the other hand, being able to cook well or give an accurate weather forecast are skills far removed from an ultimate understanding of the universe. For that task, reductionist thinking is clearly required. This does not mean that reductionism is only useful to explain the subatomic physics of life. You can usually understand something better by reducing it and looking at the level of explanation immediately below it. For example, you can cook a better lasagne if you understand the correct measures of flour and tomato sauce in its recipe. To understand flour, you would need in turn to understand the level below that – that is, the consistency of the various grains used in the production of flour, so that you only choose the finest durum wheat for your ingredients. One could go on down the levels of explanation until atoms and molecules are reached. By the time you have decided on the best quantity of hydrogen to use, however, you will most likely have died of starvation. Usually, it is the level immediately below a phenomenon that is most helpful in comprehending it rather than ever more basic and abstruse levels of description. The great thing about reductive explanations is that they allow you to work upwards again, like a ship's captain taking a trip to the engine room and returning to the bridge better informed about the capabilities of his vessel. You descend to more basic levels of description to zero in on what will make all the difference on higher levels.

Despite the practical uses of reductionism, its application in everyday life often comes in the form of cynicism. It is reductionist to say, for example, that though someone gives money to charity and devotes his free time to volunteer work, he is 'merely' serving his own interests. It is also reductionist to declare that although a company might instigate projects aimed at improving the environment and protecting its employees, it is ultimately concerned 'only' for its long-term profits. That said, it would be no less reductionist to claim that the company is acting solely out of Christian kindness. To qualify as reductionist, an explanation needs only to explain one thing in terms of another that is more basic, or many things in terms of a single other thing. Reductionism sounds quite innocent when put like this, but nothing that has so much explanatory power is ever going to be harmless.

同类推荐
  • War by Other Means
  • Sherlock Holmes
  • Arcanum 101

    Arcanum 101

    Fifteen-year-old Tomas Torres, the son of an immigrant family who are just barely making it, gets picked up by the police for doing some work for the local padrone (collector). For this work, Tomas has made $1000 a week, a lot of money by anyone's count. But what is the work? What is Tomas arrested for? Arson, but arson that cannot be explained. Tomas has a most unusual gift: he is a fire-starter--he can start fires with sheer force of will that flame from the tips of his fingers. More, he can will fireballs to hurl at his enemies or opponents, and he can incinerate any evidence. But the courts decide they have enough to convict young Tomas and send him off to a school (which Tomas believes to be a kind of jail): St. Rhiannon's School for the Gifted and Exceptional Student.
  • Odd & True

    Odd & True

    Trudchen grew up hearing Odette's stories of their monster-slaying mother and a magician's curse. But now that Tru's older, she's starting to wonder if her older sister's tales were just comforting lies, especially because there's nothing fantastic about her own life—permanently disabled and in constant pain from childhood polio. In 1909, after a two-year absence, Od reappears with a suitcase supposedly full of weapons and a promise to rescue Tru from the monsters on their way to attack her. But it's Od who seems haunted by something. And when the sisters' search for their mother leads them to a face-off with the Leeds Devil, a nightmarish beast that's wreaking havoc in the Mid-Atlantic states, Tru discovers the peculiar possibility that she and her sister—despite their dark pasts and ordinary appearances—might, indeed, have magic after all.
  • Dog Beach Unleashed (The Seagate Summers #2)

    Dog Beach Unleashed (The Seagate Summers #2)

    Remy can't wait for another summer on Seagate Island. It's time to bring back her successful dog-sitting business on Dog Beach and see her favorite friends. But instead of sunny days and fun in the sand, the summer is off to a rainy start. Remy and the dogs have cabin fever, and, to make matters worse, her friendship with her longtime pal, Bennett, is starting to feel complicated. What can one twelve-year-old do to create summer magic when the summer doesn't seem to be showing up?
热门推荐
  • 绝响之机动战队

    绝响之机动战队

    机甲涌现的年代,一场不平凡的旅途就此开始
  • 芜笙传

    芜笙传

    剩女顾芜笙,顾家继承人。本应一生顺遂,奈何世事难料,于车祸中丧生。再睁眼,已成了诏月国的风流王爷——南风芜笙。被长姐打压,被心爱之人背叛,最后落得个不得好死的结局,而这一切悲惨的命运都将由顾芜笙改写……
  • 花都小神医

    花都小神医

    且看小神医医术无双,妙手回春,玩转花都!
  • 佛说断温经

    佛说断温经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 何曾为他许

    何曾为他许

    她做的都是为了别人,在爱面前亦是。她的降临是不幸的,可有父如此她又是万幸的。感叹自己的幸福却又想知道悲从何来……
  • 英雄无双4·沙场英雄

    英雄无双4·沙场英雄

    《英雄无双》是一个以网络游戏为背景的超现实题材的幻想小说系列,也是国内网游小说第一人施鸥继《再生勇士》之后最受欢迎的网游小说。本书是《英雄无双》系列的第四部。因为恶魔小铃铛的原因,星月工作室遭到了一群职业玩家的灭国威胁。职业玩家的实力与无情,给女孩子们上了沉重的一课,关键时刻,还是刘仁力挽狂澜。人类阵营新一轮国王任务开始,这一次场面更加恢宏,更多高手参与其中,而逐渐恢复热血的刘仁,终于不再满足于小打小闹,他要以一敌万!游戏中精彩的任务一个接一个,但游戏之余,刘仁居然还要面临一项新任务,就是与一位女硕士探讨游戏与人生……
  • 秋冬进补好,来年生病少

    秋冬进补好,来年生病少

    有的人先天体质差,身体虚弱、容易生病、手脚冰凉……有的人后天保养不当,形体消瘦、容易疲劳、皮肤干燥……有的人气虚,精神不振、容易出汗、胸闷气喘……有的人肾虚,腰膝酸痛、容易失眠、眩晕耳鸣……不管你是多大年纪、什么身体状况,只要抓住了“秋冬”这个进补的最佳时节,简单进补,就能彻底改善当前的身体状态,来年腰不酸、腿不疼、精神好、生病少!老中医陈惊蛰纵观数千年的中华养生史,将老祖宗经过无数实践总结出来的朴素道理,与自己几十年来宝贵的临床经验融为一体,为现代家庭提供最科学、最全面、最方便的秋冬食疗进补方案。
  • 男团经纪人

    男团经纪人

    一场缘分让我们相遇,故事的开始,谁是谁的救赎,谁又该离开。曾经在莫雨轩的世界里,她以为自己是不幸的,自从遇见了他们,给她生命带来一丝光亮。他们本是天之骄子,一个冷漠无情,一个高冷禁欲,一个温润尔雅,一个阳光正气,一个开朗活泼。最后,谁才是她的归属,他们能否得到幸福?
  • 无限制演绎

    无限制演绎

    新书《BOSS降临现实》英雄,枭雄,好人,坏人,善良,邪恶……不能只想活下去,目标要更远大一点,比如……活的更好。
  • 书穿小炮灰逆袭记

    书穿小炮灰逆袭记

    苏若纪本来惊喜的发现自己在死后重生到了一个年仅五岁的世家嫡出大小姐身上,可是不到两个月她惊恐的发现自己是书穿了,穿到了一个才七岁就被炮灰了的女配身上……女强文,女主不会嫁人的。