> On Apr 12, 2017, at 8:15 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > CG >> I’d more put it that biological descriptions typically aren’t >> reducible to chemistry or physics... attempting to make the >> reduction... did perhaps help in getting biologists to think >> more carefully about the type of descriptions they make. > > You could say the same about "reducing" meteorology to computational > physics. Weather predictions today are far more reliable than they > were 50 years ago. But it's good to have an alternate date when > you're planning a picnic.
Yes that’s the exact way I think about it. It’s a practical issue not a metaphysical one. Further non-linear dynamics (not always at work) can make some reductions as difficult as some predictions. A little error can sometimes spiral out of control such as with a double pendulum.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
