Holism
Holism
Not to be confused with -holism.
2 Science
Holism (from Greek ὅλος holos “all, whole, entire”) is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts.[1][2]
Main article: Holism in science
Social scientist and physician Nicholas A. Christakis explains that “for the last few centuries, the Cartesian project in science has been to break matter down into ever smaller bits, in the pursuit of understanding. And this works, to some extent... but putting things back together in order to understand them is harder, and typically comes later in the development of a scientist or in the development of science.”[3]
system behavior in certain classes of systems.
In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity. Systems in biology, psychology, or sociology are frequently so complex that their behavior is, or appears, “new” or "emergent": it cannot be deduced from
Holism is a form of antireductionism, which is the com- the properties of the elements alone.[14] plement of reductionism. Reductionism analyzes a com- Holism has thus been used as a catchword. This conplex system by subdividing or reduction to more funda- tributed to the resistance encountered by the scientific mental parts. For example, the processes of biology are interpretation of holism, which insists that there are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are ex- ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in prinplained by physics. ciple from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of
1
Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural
Not to be confused with -holism.
2 Science
Holism (from Greek ὅλος holos “all, whole, entire”) is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts.[1][2]
Main article: Holism in science
Social scientist and physician Nicholas A. Christakis explains that “for the last few centuries, the Cartesian project in science has been to break matter down into ever smaller bits, in the pursuit of understanding. And this works, to some extent... but putting things back together in order to understand them is harder, and typically comes later in the development of a scientist or in the development of science.”[3]
system behavior in certain classes of systems.
In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity. Systems in biology, psychology, or sociology are frequently so complex that their behavior is, or appears, “new” or "emergent": it cannot be deduced from
Holism is a form of antireductionism, which is the com- the properties of the elements alone.[14] plement of reductionism. Reductionism analyzes a com- Holism has thus been used as a catchword. This conplex system by subdividing or reduction to more funda- tributed to the resistance encountered by the scientific mental parts. For example, the processes of biology are interpretation of holism, which insists that there are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are ex- ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in prinplained by physics. ciple from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of
1
Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural
References: • von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1971) [1968], General System Theory • Bohm, D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-0971-2 • Leenhardt, M Rutgers University Press, Brunswick NJ, 1999. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 1976. • James, S. The Content of Social Explanation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1984. • Robert Stern, Hegel, Kant and the Structure of the Object, London: Routledge Chapman Hall, 1990 Calcutta, 1966 9