When evaluating biological research, you might have heard that I have called it "reductionistic"; that it simplifies all behavior to biological processes and neglects cognitive, social and cultural factors. If you want to learn more of what reductionism is, this is an essay that I wrote two years ago on the topic:
In Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein the University student Victor Frankenstein builds a living creature in his laboratory through methods of science and alchemy by assembling body parts from corpses taken from graveyards, slaughterhouses and dissecting rooms. Shelley's novel deals with an issue that has occupied philosophers for thousands of years. Are the functions of a living organism due to a vital principle distinct to matter, such as a soul, an idea referred to as vitalism, or is life like the theory of mechanism postulates, purely the effect of natural phenomena? Frankenstein uncovers the secret of life by studying medieval alchemy and natural science. In Shelley's time it might have looked like the discovery of the secret of life was close at hand. In 1791, almost thirty years before the publication of Frankenstein's monster, the Italian anatomist and discoverer of bioelectricity, Luigi Galvani had managed to make the leg of a dead frog twitch when his steel scalpel accidently touched the brass hook that was holding the leg in place. In the same century, the famous German physician Franz Mesmer claimed that he had discovered a vital magnetic energy force that he could discharge from his own body. 200 years has now passed since the publication of Frankenstein, and although some scientists think we are close, we have not yet uncovered the secret of life. Frankenstein's monster is however a good illustration of how a reductionist views life. For what, you might ask, is a human being other than body parts? Is she anything else than flesh and bone? Is she nothing but heart, lungs and brain that work together as a system to make a body function? If you believe that a human is just a form of life you can be considered to be a reductionist. Reductionists believe that any complex system is nothing but the sum of its’ components. A cake is its’ ingredients, a painting its’ colors, a human her body parts. This essay will evaluate the use of reductionism in biopsychology. Reductionism is an approach on how to conduct science. It deals with the question of whether qualities, concepts, explanations and methods from one scientific domain can be explained by qualities, concepts, explanations and methods from another domain of science. For instance, a reductionist would believe that psychological concepts like intelligence and mind can be explained by biological factors, such as evolution, brain structure, genetics, and bio chemicals in the body. In addition, a reductionist thinks that psychology would benefit in applying methods used in the science of biology, like the experimental method, genetic research and observations of animal behavior. Reductionist explanations are usually based on “lower” or smaller levels of organization. Reductionists, that follow the law of parsimony, believe that the simplest level of explanation is the best and that complex events can be reduced to simple component processes or a few basic principles. To understand this, we must first understand the world view of a reductionist. Reductionists believe that the world can be organized into levels. This hierarchy is often referred to as the reductionist ladder. Each level in the ladder consists of a complex system; a group of interrelated elements that together creates a unified whole. For instance, on the psychological level we find consciousness and behavior. Consciousness can be seen as a system consisting of thoughts, ideas, memories, beliefs, perceptions, sensations and experiences whereas behavior can be broken down into smaller distinguishable elements, such as reflexes and muscle movements. The elements are inter-related in that they affect each other. Thought can for instance lead to action and several different motor movements are required for the action of kicking a ball. Beneath the psychological level we find the biological level - living organisms, their processes and interactions. A reductionist would claim that psychological processes depend solely on the biological level. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, the biologist Richard Dawkins introduced the term hierarchical reductionism to describe a hierarchy of levels, where each level only can be explained by a level directly underneath and no other level. For a reductionist, the relationship between a higher and a lower level of organization is causal, meaning that phenomena in the higher level of organization can be completely explained by a lower level of organization. Phenomena in the higher level explanation are called epiphenomena, or in another word by-products due to the reductionist assumption that higher levels of organization cannot causally affect lower levels of organization. Reductionism is related to the philosophical theory of mechanism that states that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural causes. Universal mechanists mean that the universe can be best understood as a completely mechanical system, like a machine or a clock. In this view, the universe is a complex system that consists of matter in motion governed by the laws of nature. The enlightenment philosopher Rene Descartes contributed much to the mechanistic understanding of nature. He claimed that all natural objects, including non-human animals and human bodies could be understood as completely mechanistic automata; self governed machines. Being both mechanistic and causal, reductionism is further on related to causal determinism, the idea that every event by necessity is caused by previous events and conditions due to the laws of nature. Reductionists within biology could generally be considered to be biological determinists, in that they assume that biological factors, such as genes, completely determine an individual's psychology and behavior. Reductionism is also related to the philosophy of materialism which holds that matter is the only reality. The reductionist approach has been successfully applied in science. By breaking down phenomena into smaller, simple component, processes are more easily analyzed, and hypotheses of their interaction more easily tested. If we for instance assume that there is a gene that influences learning ability we can compare the difference in that particular gene between subjects with learning deficits and subjects with no learning deficits, or if we have reason to believe that the hippocampal structure in the brain is related to sexual orientation we can compare the differences between the structure of hypothalamus and subjects with differing sexual orientation. Reductionist research is often laboratory or experimentally based in order to discover cause and effect relations and minimize confounding variables, although this type of research often has limited ecological validity. By explaining phenomena in terms of an underlying physical basis, a science like psychology can gain scientific support and credibility from more established sciences like biology, chemistry and physics. By unifying with those sciences, a more consistent, yet materialistic world view is provided. The reductionist approach in biopsychology has also had successful applications, such as drug therapy and psychosurgery, though the effectiveness of some drug therapy still remains inconclusive. Some research has even suggested that effectiveness of drug therapy for treating depression may be mainly due to the placebo effect; the person’s faith in the treatment may affect the outcome of the treatment. Whatever its’ successes, reductionism fails to explain the emergent properties of a system. Emergence is when new properties arise in a system that cannot be found in any of its constituent parts. To use an example, a cake creates a taste experience that hardly can be found separately in any of the ingredients. I doubt that the experience of just eating the ingredients (egg, sugar, butter, salt, baking powder) of a sugar cake separately would add up to the same experience as eating a sugar cake. Or that individually looking at various colors would add up to the same experience as looking at van Gogh art. Another example relates to psychology. The mind is aware and conscious, yet few of us think that single neurons have any mental experience. These examples relate well to the idea of holism, which unlike reductionism states that all the properties of a given system cannot be explained by its’ constituent parts alone. The idea of holism can be traced back to Aristotle, who is said to have declared that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts". Reductionism can be claimed to explain away higher level phenomena, rather than to solve them, a point that the behaviorist Daniel Dennett made in his book Darwin's dangerous idea. For instance, a reductionist may explain consciousness as stemming from unconscious processes in the brain. Conversely, this explanation does not provide an answer on how the addition of several unconscious components can be equal to a conscious process. That is to say, unless even small particles in the universe have a level of consciousness, an idea put forward by dr Bohm, among others. Reductionism can also be criticized for its’ downward causation claim; that only lower level causes phenomena in a higher level and neglecting interaction between levels. One study that challenges this claim is a study by neuroscientist Pascal-Leone in 2002. Pascal-Leone instructed participants to learn to practice a five-finger piano exercise for five days, two hours every day. During the session, the participants’ motor cortex was investigated by the use of a transcranial-magnetic-stimulation test (TMS). The findings showed that practice altered the structure of the area devoted for the finger movements. For a group of participants who also had been instructed to imagine they were playing five-finger piano tone outside of practice, the area for finger movements in the motor cortex expanded even more. The results suggest that training and imagination can alter brain structure. To summarize, reductionism is a belief that qualities, concepts, explanations and methods from one scientific domain can be explained by qualities, concepts, explanations and methods from another domain of science on a more fundamental level. According to reductionism, the simplest level of explanation is the best and complex events can be reduced to simple component processes or basic principles. Reductionism has been successfully applied in science, as breaking down phenomena into smaller, simple component processes allows for easier analysis and testing of hypotheses. By allying with other sciences, psychology can gain support and credibility from the natural sciences. With a unified science, reductionism is able to provide a consistent world view. The reductionist approach has also had some success in treatment of mental disorders, such as psychosurgery and drug therapy. On the contrary, reductionism cannot explain emergent properties in a system and can be accused of explaining away higher level phenomena rather than explaining them. The reductionist approach can also be criticized for its’ assumption of downward causation; that only fundamental levels can affect higher levels of organization and not the other way around. New research suggests an interaction instead of causation between biology and psychology; that beliefs, experiences and training may alter organization on the biological level. In conclusion, though the reductionist approach has contributed to the unification of and collaboration between sciences, it has failed to explain the emergence of psychological phenomena. Interaction and not causation should be the most appropriate and valid assumption for psychological research, with the emphasis of subjective needs, individual, social, cultural and situational variables. The individual must be viewed in her context. Whatever the causes of my behavior, I am more than my causes. Even though I cannot choose my parents or change my past, I may be able to choose my path in life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis is my class blog for IB Psychology. Here I will publish reflections on psychology, reviews of psychology books, recommended links, lecture notes, and information on psychology topics that are not covered by the syllabus. You are free to add comments or ask me questions. Archives
August 2015
Categories
All
|