Subject: hey!

From: [email-masked] (Brian Sticka)
Date: 29 Sep 1995 15:29:51 -0700

symbiosis-pure chance?  -or good health?

One reason why reductionism is dominant in biology is that these 
artificial branches of science have been isolated.  Human beings are 
animals, therefore sociology is pertantent to biology.  This, of course, 
would force reductionists to confront the findings of the famous 
sociologist, Emile Durkeim.  It is impossible to evolve by natural 
selection a tendency toward suicide.  Durkeim not only showed some groups 
are more prone to it than others, he found it was the least social groups 
that were more likely to do so.  Since then, science has found amazing 
evidence of the importance of social cohesion for medical patients.

The fact of the matter is reductionists can describe the attrocities of 
nature until they're blue in the face, but if they find out they're wrong 
about even one thing, their whole paradigm collapses.  Reductionists are 
always on the defensive.  Since there are a multitude of examples in 
which nature doesn't seem to be pure fitness, reductionists can pick and 
choose the easiest to explane within their paradigm.  With others, they 
can confuse us with so much theory and speculation that it's not clear 
what would survive.

I dare any reductionist to explain sentience from the beginning.  Sure, 
you can say thought is chemically motivated, but you can't explain why 
you are you and not me or the chair you're sitting on.  How did we get 
recruited to life, if we're entirely material.

Non-reductionists always ask the big, tough questions don't they?  
Acknowledge your life force!