More work is needed in how to relate different kinds of hierarchies to questions of reductionism.
Yet this is consistent with two distinct physical situations corresponding to the same correction concours ensea higher level state (many-one).
In all these cases it seems clear that debates about reductionism in biology have not reached a denouement but rather portend vigorous philosophical discussion as the heterogeneity of issues related to its ontological, epistemological, and methodological types are brought to bear on perennial biological topics.9.2 which is related to the context objection ( Section.1 ).Book manuscript in progress.Rather, the point is that a higher level type corresponds to several lower level types, and for each of these lower level kinds a distinct molecular account obtains.Waters (2008) extends this account by emphasizing how the investigative practices of classical genetics were retooled by developments in molecular genetics, which accounts for the success of the corresponding explanations.Digest of the First Annual ieee Computer Conference, 29-32 (September 1967).Contents: Intelligent usic software, neural networks, functional languages, parallel languages.Mechanism approaches have now developed into a robust alternative to theory reduction (see Section 5 ).Relations between the two fields are manifested as differential attention to distinct aspects of a larger, temporally extended mechanism.Whether or not genuine incommensurability obtains is controversial (see,.g., Sankey 1994).
(Note that this is not the question of how theory structure is represented; see,.g., Schaffner 1996.) Almost all of the discussion surrounding one-many ( Section.1 ) and many-one problems ( Section.2 ) for theory and explanatory reduction assume or presume particular representations.Thus, he offered a version of epistemic reduction in line with his conception of mechanical philosophy, which included a heterogeneous methodology (reductionist and non-reductionist) and concomitant reservations about ontological reduction.Although one-many phenomena have been known for some time, it is now a robust empirical generalization that a molecular pathway may have different effects in different cellular contexts; the same pathway can be involved in different functions in different species or in different parts.Additionally, the rise of sociobiology and gene-centered evolutionary explanations provoked anti-reductionist stances among biologists on the basis of social and political commitments (e.g., Levins and Lewontin 1985).Instead, the system behavior is a function of generic patterns of component interaction, which foregrounds how complexity emerges from dynamics rather than constitution (see Section.3 ).Research directions in software technology, MIT Press (1979).Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 7, 1, 40-63(1989).
However, this is an abstract rather than a spatial hierarchy; the assumption that A and a map to Aa at the next higher level does not require Aa to be a physical entity that has A and a as its spatial parts.
(Nagel 1961, 426) Kitcher also glimpsed the potential significance of temporality for reductive explanation in the context of embryology: Because developmental processes are complex and because changes in the timing of embryological events may produce a cascade of effects at several different levels, one sometimes.