Systemism

Draft

This post is a work-in-progress and is subject to revision.

We can experience a system as a whole or analyse it into its constituent parts. A worldview that privileges the former is called "holism", and the latter "reductionism". In everyday conversation, holism typically carries a positive connotation, whereas reductionism is often levelled as a criticism.

Domains that are interpreted as emphasising analysis, most notably science, are labelled "reductionist", when their approach is taken to be missing something. In recent years, a critique of food and nutritional science which argued that they were guilty of "nutritional reductionism", gained significant traction. The critics instead advocated for various kinds of holism.

The dichotomy between holism and reductionism may be false. A scientist who appreciates the beauty of plants is more likely to become interested in their analysis. An artist that is aware of the geometrical patterns in nature may incorporate them into their artwork. While there are scientific disciplines that focus on parts (molecular biology), there are also those focused on wholes (synthetic biology), and many scientists that move between these poles.

There is a verticality in how we contrast holism and reductionism. We imagine experiencing the whole at a "high level" and the parts at a "low level". At the higher level, we can "take everything in" but at the low level we "miss the big picture.". Even stronger, some argue that analysis risks destroying the whole, with our immediate experience being displaced by a symbolic language of atoms, bits, molecules, and nutrients.

Instead, reductionism can be thought of as a narrowing of perspective. In that sense, holism itself is a kind of reductionism, as it narrows our perspective to the whole, a particular level of analysis. Just as we can be "nutritional reductionists" (reducing food to nutrients), we can also be "sensory reductionists" (reducing food to sense experience) or "cultural reductionists" (reducing food to its socio-cultural role). Each of these is a legimitimate way to analyse food but none of them is total.

To be more clear, we can think of two general kinds of reduction:

• Macro-reduction: from parts to wholes (holism)
• Micro-reduction: from wholes to parts (reductionism)

Science often begins with the experience of an interesting phenomenon. A scientist then attempts to study its underlying causes. When the analysis is complete, they build a model that connects the causes to the experience. The investigation not only includes considerations of parts and wholes, but also attempts to integrate them together in the form of an explanation.

An engineer who develops software moves between writing the code and debugging the program. They experience a problem with the user interface and then must analyse the causes of that problem. The development process is a continuous loop between the parts that make up the program and that whole experience that the user encounters.

The Argentian philosopher Mario Bunge used the term "systemism" to refer to an epistemology of systematic explanations that bridges holism and reductionism. Bunge was skeptical of both holism and reductionism when used in isolation: reductionists are at risk of irrelevance, while holists are prone to superficiality.

Imagine that you have made a causal observation of some kind. This could be that:

• Clicking the button made the software crash
• Mixing the chemicals made the solution blue

This is the macro level. It is at the top of this diagram and is signified by $A_0 \to B_0$:

$$ \Huge {{{A_0 \atop \downarrow} \atop A_1} {{\to \atop \ } \atop \to} {{B_0 \atop \uparrow} \atop B_1}} $$

At the bottom there is another causal relation $A_1 \to B_1$ occupying the micro level. The micro is less salient or immediate, and may require deep reasoning or the use of instruments:

• How is the button implemented and does it produce the bug?
• Which type of chemicals did I mix and what reaction was generated?

Moving between the two levels — micro and macro — is characteristic of:

• Analysis: determining the micro-level causes responsible for macro-level effects
• Synthesis: creating macro-level effects through manipulation of micro-level components

It is possible to restrict ourselves to a single level, which may result in the formation of a narrow worldview:

• Micro-reduction: "there is no society, only individuals"
• Macro-reduction: "there are no individuals, only groups"

While the former is commonly referred to as "reductionism", in contra-distinction to the "holism" of the latter, both are related as being kinds of reduction, requiring a narrowing of perspective and a denial of systematic relations.

The "macro" does not always refer to a definite level or scale in a physical sense. It depends on the context of an investigation. The elevated position of the macro in the diagram should also not be understood as establishing its priority, just as the lower position of the micro does not always prioritise it as foundational.

What delineates levels of analysis may be determined by a specific domain of inquiry, with many levels lying either side of the given macro level.

When there is an explanatory gap between two or more levels, the ontological concept of "emergence" may be invoked. Here, there are a set of coincident events but no established relation between them. Crucially, this does not mean that the relation will never be known, only that it remains to be discovered.

In summary, we often have questions of the form "what $x_1$ is the cause of $x_0$?":

$$x_1? \to x_0$$

The $x_0$ could be a scientific observation, a personal goal, or a problem to fix at the macro level.

In analysis, the causes or preconditions at the micro-level are identified. For example, a specimen known to exhibit an effect of interest is scrutinised with special instruments. To explain why salt has an associated taste we might measure its chemical dissociation in saliva, which enables the transmission of signals to the brain. Salts may be observed to have different intensities of saltiness, prompting measurement of conductivity as the different salts dissolve into solution.

$$ \Huge {{Salt \atop \downarrow} \atop Na^+ } {{\to \atop \ } \atop \to} {{taste \atop \uparrow} \atop signal} $$

In synthesis, the effect (or outcome) is generated under specific conditions. Inventing technology can help society make progress. Such progress is bolstered further when an invention has a concrete implementation as a product. This facilitates exposure to the market, which initiates mechanisms of feedback that can improve the implementation. Accelerating progress is not just about getting products to market, it's also about creating conditions for invention and feedback.

$$ \Huge {{Product \atop \uparrow} \atop Invent } {{\to \atop \ } \atop \to} {{Market \atop \downarrow} \atop Progress} $$

The appearance of emergent properties may highlight an inappropriate conceptual or methodological framing. For example, water can be interpreted on a strictly molecular basis as being composed of two kinds of elements existing in a certain relative proportion and structured by particular forces. This is the micro level. Yet, at the macro level, water has properties like viscosity and turbulence, which are difficult to predict based on strict appeals to molecular chemistry. For this reason, scientific fields like rheology are oriented towards developing specific methodologies appropriate to a relatively macro level.

We are not confined to the any one level. The study of any complex system often requires moving between analysis and synthesis.

$$\Large \overbrace{{{A_0 \atop \downarrow} \atop A_1} {{\to \atop \ } \atop \to} {{B_0 \atop \uparrow} \atop B_1}}^{\text{analysis}} \iff \overbrace{{{A_0 \atop \uparrow} \atop A_1} {{\to \atop \ } \atop \to} {{B_0 \atop \downarrow} \atop B_1}}^{\text{synthesis}} $$

The utility of having a deeper explanation of a phenomenon is not always clear. When learning chemistry, we might hear about some everyday phenomenon and then be provided with a chemical explanation. While it is nice to learn new information, what power does it give us?

Consider the case of pink tea. With some varieties of green tea, it is possible to generate a bright pink colour if it is brewed with baking soda and milk. Recipes typically report that baking soda is needed to generate the colour, without specifying why.

At the micro level, baking soda is just an alkalising agent. It elevates pH resulting in chemical reactions involving tea polyphenols that cause a change in colour. When milk is heated, there is also a chemical reaction between its sugars and proteins, which contribute a browning effect that is accelerated in alkaline conditions.

$$ \Huge {{NaHCO_3 \atop \downarrow} \atop OH^-} {{\to \atop \ } \atop \to} {{pink \atop \uparrow} \atop rxn} $$

The original macro observation is still valid and may be perfectly sufficient if we want to make pink tea for friends. Once we have a micro explanation we do not discard the macro one. Both levels can function together in an explanatory system. In addition, the explanation gives us more power to act.

For example, someone may want to drink pink tea but is concerned about their sodium intake. We have learned that the recipe does not require baking soda, however, only something from the general class of alkalising agents. To increase pH we need something that releases $OH^-$ ions. It is therefore possible to substitute baking soda for a sodium-free alternative as long as it releases $OH^-$, like potassium hydroxide ($KOH$).

Imagine that a significant market for pink tea has emerged and there is a demand to manufacture it at industrial scale. The problem is that there is significant inter-batch variation in colour and an immediate need to better control the process. We have learned that a change in pH is critical for determining the final colour of the tea. Installing a pH measuring device to ensure that the correct pH is consistently reached would seem prudent.

Finally, changes in colour induced by chemical reactions involving polyphenols, sugars and proteins are unlikely to be restricted to the peculiar case of pink tea. Knowledge of the link between chemical reactions and colour changes can be generalised to many other systems. For example, the browning reaction mentioned earlier can also be an indicator of the reduced availability of some amino acids to the body.

Bunge, M. (2014/2003). Emergence and Convergence: Qualitative Novelty and the Unity of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bunge, M. (1979). Treatise on Basic Philosophy Volume 4, Ontology II: A World of Systems. Dordrecht: D. Reidel publishing Company.