Limmitations of newtonian-cartisian-mechanistic science.

[Edvin]

How do you see the effects of the mechanistic understanding of the universe limmit todays understanding of natural phenomena? It has been pointed out that the mechanistic habbit of taking a given phenomena and studying it's smallest constituents and how these interact will not always give an satisfactory explanation of the phenomena as an whole. The whole is more than the sum of it's parts, some say. Is this the case? If so, how does the problem manifest itself scientificaly? When does the mechanistic understanding render us unable to explain any given phenomena?

Not actually advocating my beliefs here. Just want to see if anyone has any interesting thaughts on the issue, as I am currently trying to figure it out myself

[Didymos Thomas]

Good topic. A science buff, I'm sure, will be able to help you out with this.

When does the mechanistic understanding render us unable to explain any given phenomena?

When we run out of parts to divide.

[Aedes]

Newtonian mechanics is largely obsolete, in the age of relativity -- many inaccuracies and unsatisfactory explanations in mechanics were cleaned up / discarded by modern physics.

That aside, there's more to science than looking at ever smaller questions. Things happen at varying levels of resolution. Yes, ultimately, everything from neurobiology to industrial chemistry is beholden to basic physical parameters. But studying neurobiology is meaningless if you break it down to that level. So you pick the level that best corresponds to the unique scientific question you're asking. Remember that science, more than anything else, is the process of asking a specific question and then executing a methodology to answer it. So how a method works depends entirely on the question being asked.

[Edvin]

"many inaccuracies and unsatisfactory explanations in mechanics were cleaned up / discarded by modern physics."

Yes, that's in physics. Quantum physics is trancending the cartesian division between mind and matter, as well as newtonian mechanics. But mechanistic thougt is still seen in all the sciences. Social, biological and economical, as well as in the public oppninion of how to solve problems. Any exampels out there?

[Edvin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

When we run out of parts to divide.

Interesting take.

Within our frameworks we have found the smallest constituents and its properties. We have come to the core of it all, in a way. We tend to take the interaction of these constituents to sum op the whole phenomena. This has been proven very little effective in describing certain kinds of behavior. This does not implicate that we have overlooked certain properties, and that we have to digg deeper. It implicates that a phenomena is more than the sum of its parts. Influence from other systems, maybe?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Edvin

mechanistic thougt is still seen in all the sciences. Social, biological and economical, as well as in the public oppninion of how to solve problems. Any exampels out there?

By "mechanistic" thought are you referring to scientific reductionism? Even then, it's a matter of filling in gaps and answering questions. My last two years as a research fellow I spent studying protein interactions between the malaria parasite and the red blood cell membrane. The end point is to have a detailed understanding of how the parasite is mechanistically able to infect the red blood cell. This requires a mechanistic investigation, in which many small questions must be asked and studied in order to understand the totality.

[Edvin]

By mechanistic thought I mean the belief that everything is fundamentaly separated and linked together, and the habbit of studying all phenomena by finding its smallest parts and see how these parts interact, and taking the findings and atributing them to the phenomena in general, without including f.eks influence beyond/outside the constituents.

[Aedes]

Like I mentioned with cell biology, the key is not breaking a phenomenon down to its smallest parts, but rather to its fundamental and essential components. The interaction between the parasite protein EBA-175 and the human protein Glycophorin A is crucial to understanding how malaria infects red blood cells. And yet these proteins are made of amino acids, whose sequence is genetically determined, and all involved molecules and processes contain Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Sulfur, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen, and these atoms are made up of protons that contain gluons and quarks, etc...

Point is that when you get below that which makes EBA-175 or glycophorin A unique, you're no longer studying the question that interests you. But it turns out there are other unique parasite and host proteins that are part of the whole physiology of how the parasite infects human cells -- and answering THAT is the goal of this particular scientific project.

[Edvin]

Yes, you are right. While saying smallest, I should have said smalles essential constituents. But the fact still remains that one digg as deep as one can go, without going beyond what makes the phenomena unique, as you said. Still, once at this level one tends to explain the whole phenomena by these constituents properties. I am not saying that this may not be necessary and even beneficial in certain instances, as it would be within your field of work. The problem is that it is applied to almost all phenomena with the belief that its framework can be adapted to explain it as precise as it did with f.eks you malaria research. Feelin' it?

[Aedes]

once at this level one tends to explain the whole phenomena by these constituents properties.

To the extent one can -- some fields are more mature than others.

The problem is that it is applied to almost all phenomena with the belief that its framework can be adapted to explain it as precise as it did with f.eks you malaria research

Again, it depends on how important the question is and how effectively you study it. Human anatomy is almost dead as a science, because there's basically nothing important about human anatomy that hasn't been described a million times over. But there are other fields that have plenty of room for new discovery and understanding.