Therefore, we need not feel threatened by
reductionist accounts of the human person nor by the paradoxes of identity and memory that dog philosophical doctrines of immortality.
In this article he argues against
reductionist accounts of what it is to be human.
Not exact matches
[Dennett's] limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature - for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally
reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins» publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable
account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine.
All that it says may be true, but, the objection would go, its claim to give a full
account of a congregation's «reality» is
reductionist.
The question at issue is whether we can
account for everything — e.g., all biological processes, including behaviour (and some people would include, others exclude, mind and / or conscious self - awareness)-- in terms of those entities, as
reductionists and mechanists claimed, or do we have to invoke something else, which might be organizing relations» or «system properties,» as anti-
reductionists and organicists argued.
But that's a pretty
reductionist view, because it doesn't take into
account all of the factors that influence how many calories we eat each day.
He realized that the
reductionist approach fails to
account for many of the factors comprise a more robust holistic approach to global warming AND COOLING.