The epistemology of reduction and addition
Jan Braeken
To everyone on this forum.
The moment I first started on this forum – this was 19.12.2005 to be exact – I introduced the concepts of reduction and addition in the context of my view on life. Some of you, and I say some, clearly misunderstood the point of them. They are much more complex than they seem to be. Reduction, as well as addition, can neither be reduced nor added to anything, and at the same time can be reduced as well as added to everything, depending on the starting point of reasoning, reflecting, thinking, feeling, imagining, …, etc. (addition), the goal of it, it’s nature or interpretation, it’s emotional attribution, method, the subject or object at hand, the context, …, etc. (addition). When for example we take as an object at hand ‘a chair’. When we take as the starting point the concept of reduction as a method of reasoning, we could reduce that reduction method to that chair, e.g. in order to investigate that chair (goal), because reduction as a method is infinitely larger in it’s scope of application : we can reduce it to any phenomenon, subject or object for that reason. Secondly, if we take as a starting point the object ‘chair’ itself, we can add reduction as that method to that chair for the same goal.
The interesting thing about these concepts of reduction an addition in connection with that chair and anything else this. In our daily use of language, words and concepts are mostly quickly attributed and used to point out something or someone as a part of reality (including the ‘whole’ of reality), where the parts of reality they wish to point or be attributed to are mostly much, much more complex and divers. That is exactly where generalisations come from. If we use ‘chair’ to point to ‘a’ chair in our environment (reduction), we can do that very, very easily, even with our eyes and ears closed. We almost need ‘nothing’ for that (reduction). At least it seems that way. When we enter reality itself though, things change immediately and drastically. When e.g. this chair is suddenly taken away by someone else (e.g. claiming falsely it is his chair), the problems start. Suddenly we discover that that ‘chair’ is not ‘any’ chair but a very specific one : ours (addition 1). Well now, this is what reality is all about : change. We do not change our blind and deaf, quick use of words to point at reality, but reality is always one step ahead and forces us to change this attitude because reality changes all the time. In the case of our chair : in order to recognise (addition 2) ‘our’ chair amongst sometimes hundreds of other chairs (addition 3, e.g. when we lend our chair for a meeting), we need to compare (add 4) its specific colour (add 5), texture (add 6), form (add 7), place (add 8), age or time (add 9), purpose (add 10), …, etc. This difference may look very innocent, but in fact it is not. If this chair subsequently breaks down under the weight of the person that claimed it was his, again we are forced to change. Then it becomes even more necessary to add. At that moment we need to discus not only our property, but also it’s damage, repair, payment, …, etc (more additions). We could also discuss our habit with broken chairs – how often we very quickly throw this chair away (reduction) where we should or could repair or recycle it, study it, repaint it, use it as an art work, …, etc. (addition).
The same applies to people. If we take any person, we often quickly say ‘he is a fool’, ‘she is brilliant’, ‘he is crazy’, ‘she is lazy’, ‘he is busy’, ‘she has not time’, etc, (reduction), where this same person has a name, has family, lives somewhere, has different opinions, knows something about some aspects of life but almost nothing about other aspects, is male or female (which can be unclear at that moment), has a (or no) nationality, …, etc. (addition). The problems people have, their scientific study-object, their lifestyle, their way of communication, their opinion on one subject, etc., all of them are additions, and all of them separately can be subject to addition and/or reduction. (And I repeat : all my posts from 19.12.05 till now can be considered as additions as well as reductions to any subject.)
We can clearly see here that these concepts of reduction and addition cannot be reduced to anything else immediately in order to understand them fully immediately – such immediate understanding is not possible since reducing and adding we can, could or may do with everything, without end, throughout all our lives, and every single one of them is different in place and time –, but also have to be reduced to every single phenomenon, one by one and ad infinitum, if we want to understand them more and more and step by step. The same applies to adding. Everything else is a reduction, and an addition.
Cheers.
Jan Braeken
Atelus
post has helped clairfy to "some" of us what you actually mean. I would
like to know but are you asking everyone on this forum a question or
are you just telling us for our own sake? I am really not trying to be
rude, I just do not know how you expect us to respond.
Omar Gmail
The very function of words, which is to define a thing, idea or concept, when it comes to your “reduction” and “addition”, are simply neglected by your own words. So I think I understand your reduction/addition scheme, but as a concept the purpose it serves is null.
omar
Sam Carana
your contributions to thinking here at this group. Epistemology needs
your very ability to come up with wider thoughts, or indeed as said
more appropriately, additional additive thoughts.
Epistemology is essentially a creative study in that we don't analyse
something to death, but that we come up with new views and angles that
shed additional light on things. This establishes epistemology's place
not merely as a study of knowledge, culture and philosophy, but as a
guide and facilitator of change itself. In the process, epistemology
does both use reduction and addition, but the general effect is very
additive in the sense that epistemology opens up people's eyes to new
perspectives.
The scientific method is different, it seeks to end up with predictive
tools in the shape of formulas, equations and other simplistic logic.
The scientific approach is typically analytic, in that it seeks to
split things up into parts for further study, seeking to reduce complex
situations into parts that may not add up to the full picture.
In the light of the above, your terms addition and reduction are very
appropriate, Jan, they contribute to define where epistemology and
science are different, and how we can attempt to make progress in
epistemology. So, thanks again, Jan, for your contributions and your
many efforts to try and explain this to people who have limited
themselves to not wanting to understand you.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken wrote:
> To everyone on this forum.
>
> The moment I first started on this forum - this was 19.12.2005 to be exact -
> I introduced the concepts of reduction and addition in the context of my
> view on life. Some of you, and I say some, clearly misunderstood the point
> of them. They are much more complex than they seem to be. Reduction, as well
> as addition, can neither be reduced nor added to anything, and at the same
> time can be reduced as well as added to everything, depending on the
> starting point of reasoning, reflecting, thinking, feeling, imagining, .,
> etc. (addition), the goal of it, it's nature or interpretation, it's
> emotional attribution, method, the subject or object at hand, the context,
> ., etc. (addition). When for example we take as an object at hand 'a chair'.
> ., etc. This difference may look very innocent, but in fact it is not. If
> this chair subsequently breaks down under the weight of the person that
> claimed it was his, again we are forced to change. Then it becomes even more
> necessary to add. At that moment we need to discus not only our property,
> but also it's damage, repair, payment, ., etc (more additions). We could
> also discuss our habit with broken chairs - how often we very quickly throw
> this chair away (reduction) where we should or could repair or recycle it,
> study it, repaint it, use it as an art work, ., etc. (addition).
>
> The same applies to people. If we take any person, we often quickly say 'he
> is a fool', 'she is brilliant', 'he is crazy', 'she is lazy', 'he is busy',
> 'she has not time', etc, (reduction), where this same person has a name, has
> family, lives somewhere, has different opinions, knows something about some
> aspects of life but almost nothing about other aspects, is male or female
> (which can be unclear at that moment), has a (or no) nationality, ., etc.
> (addition). The problems people have, their scientific study-object, their
> lifestyle, their way of communication, their opinion on one subject, etc.,
> all of them are additions, and all of them separately can be subject to
> addition and/or reduction. (And I repeat : all my posts from 19.12.05 till
> now can be considered as additions as well as reductions to any subject.)
>
> We can clearly see here that these concepts of reduction and addition cannot
> be reduced to anything else immediately in order to understand them fully
> immediately - such immediate understanding is not possible since reducing
> and adding we can, could or may do with everything, without end, throughout
> all our lives, and every single one of them is different in place and time
> -, but also have to be reduced to every single phenomenon, one by one and ad
Jan Braeken
captured the spirit of what I meant very well.
I hope also science evolves from a reductive into an additive science. Maybe
it is already like that, but some scientists may not realise that.
Cheers !
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: woensdag 2 augustus 2006 3:32
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3168] Re: The epistemology of reduction and
addition
Jan Braeken
Omar,
Saying you understood nothing of what I wrote would be a reduction. But seeing what you write here about my post I can only say in your own words : that is a reduction till null.
Cheers.
Jan
lang=EN-US>
Jan Braeken
Thank you for your response. You already responded here, and that is fine. I
did not really expect anyone to respond. I just wanted to clarify all my
previous posts. Everybody is free to comment or not. If you are discussing a
topic at this moment, any topic, I will prove if you like how reduction and
addition also applies to that topic. That is also what I meant.
Cheers.
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Atelus
Verzonden: dinsdag 1 augustus 2006 17:11
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3165] Re: The epistemology of reduction and
addition