Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:45:14.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Aggregativity: Reductive Heuristics for Finding Emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

William C. Wimsatt*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Department of Philosophy, 1050 E. 59th Street, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL., 60637. E-mail: wwim@midway.uchicago.edu.

Abstract

Most philosophical accounts of emergence are incompatible with reduction. Most scientists regard a system property as emergent relative to properties of the system's parts if it depends upon their mode of organization—a view consistent with reduction. Emergence can be analyzed as a failure of aggregativity—a state in which “the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts.” Aggregativity requires four conditions, giving tools for analyzing modes of organization. Differently met for different decompositions of the system, and in different degrees, these conditions provide powerful evaluation criteria for choosing decompositions, and heuristics for detecting biases of vulgar reductionisms. This analysis of emergence is compatible with reduction.

Type
Symposium: Emergence and Supervenience: Alternatives to Unity by Reduction
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Parts of this will appear also in my paper for Richard Levins (Wimsatt 1997) and collection of essays on reductionism and the analysis of complex systems (Wimsatt 1998). I want to thank three unidentified referees and especially Lindley Darden for extensive and helpful clarificatory comments.

References

Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R. C. (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Scientific Research Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewan, E. (1976), “Consciousness as an Emergent Causal Agent in the Context of Control System Theory”, in Globus, G. G., Maxwell, G., and Savodnik, I. (eds.), Consciousness and the Brain: Scientific and Philosophic Strategies. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 181198.10.1007/978-1-4684-2196-5_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennan, S. S. (1996), “Mechanism and the Nature of Causation”, Erkenntnis 44: 4971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huygens, Christiaan, ([1673] 1986), The Pendulum Clock, or Geometrical Demonstrations Concerning the Motion of Pendula as applied to Clocks. (Horologium oscillatorium; translated with notes by R. J. Blackwell. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1971), “Articulation of Parts Explanations in Biology and the Rational Search for Them”, in Buck, R. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA 1970. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 257272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levins, R. (1968), Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, M. (1971), “Menstrual Synchrony in Humans”, Nature 229: 244245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. ([1962]1996), “The Architecture of Complexity”, Reprinted in his 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 183216.Google Scholar
Strobeck, K. (1975), “Selection in a Fine-grained Environment”, American Naturalist 109: 419425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. J. and Haila, J. (eds.) (1997), Natural Contradictions: Perspectives on Ecology and Change. Albany: State University of New York Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1974), “Complexity and Organization”, in Schaffner, K. F. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA 1972. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 6786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1976), “Reductive Explanation—A Functional Account”, in Michalos, A. C., Hooker, C. A., Pearce, G., and Cohen, R. S., (eds.), A. C. Michalos, C. A. Hooker, G. Pearce, and R. S. Cohen, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 671710.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1980), “Reductionist Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 213259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability and Overdetermination”, in Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 124163.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986), “Forms of Aggregativity”, in Donagan, A., Perovich, A. N., and Wedin, M. (eds.), Human Nature and Natural Knowledge. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 259291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories”, in Nitecki, Matthew and Hoffman, Antoni (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 2355.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1994), “The Ontology of Complex Systems: Levels, Perspectives, and Causal Thickets”, in Mohan Matthen and R. X. Ware (eds.), Biology and Society: Reflections on Methodology. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementary volume 20, pp. 207274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1997), “Emergence as Non-Aggregativity and the Biases of Reductionism(s)”, in Haila, J. and Taylor, P. (eds.), Natural Contradictions: Perspectives on Ecology and Change. Albany: SUNY Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1998), Piecewise Approximations to Reality: Engineering a Realist Philosophy for Limited Beings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar