Mitchell, J.L.

|1

Jaime Lee Mitchell

Professor Goodwin

18 March 2010

Philosophy of Chemistry and Biology

The Limitations of Reductionism in Contemporary Fields of Biology

and Adoption of Holism as an Alternative Approach to Scientific

Thought and Inquiry: The Importance of Applying Holistic Thought in

Molecular and Evolutionary Biology

Descartes’ rational analysis, proposed that acquiring true

understanding of the complexities of natural phenomena could be

obtained by studying the smaller components from which they are

derived. Elaborating on Descartes’ ideas, Newton produced Principia

Mathematica in 1687. Newton expanded on Descartes’ suggestion that

any phenomena is explainable if dissected and studied on the smallest

levels. He believed that one day, scientists would be able to understand

and explain all phenomena with observation of smaller individual

components and the laws of mechanics. The ideas of Newton and

Descartes contributed to the eventual development and applications of

reductionism, or what some refer to as atomistic thinking. The principle

implication involves reducing processes of a certain phenomena down

Mitchell, J.L. |2

to its simplest components, in an attempt to gain understanding of the

whole process in a deep and comprehensive manner. Considerable

advancements in science can be contributed to application of

reductionist thought to scientific inquiry. In fact, until the 20th century,

reductionist methodology had dominated the thought approach which

characterized the scientific community. However, reductionism is

increasingly exhibiting limitations with expanding technological

advancements in all areas of science, especially microbiology.

The reductionists’ method proved quite successful in earlier studies

of molecular biology. Taking apart complex biological systems and

exploring their smaller components contributed to a broad

understanding of mechanisms on the chemical level. However,

reductionists are facing an increasing number of challenges in the effort

to explain biological systems based on their individual chemical

processes alone. Scientists are recognizing interactions of even the

smallest components, can be as complex as the whole system itself.

Additionally, emerging concepts such as interspecies interaction,

microbial communities, biofilms, and polymicrobial diseases are

involved in new research directions, further indicating that the whole is

much more than the simple sum of its components (Anderson 2007).

Neglecting these physiological functions and interactions as being of

importance, is a major downfall of reductionist thought. Understanding

important processes such as these, cannot be achieved by exclusive

Mitchell, J.L. |3

observation the individual components. Therefore, a better thought

approach is needed, so as to incorporate awareness for the complexity,

robustness, interrelations and emergence of biological systems that has

been overlooked in the past (Mazzocchi 2004). The philosophical

concept of holism may be the paradigm to replace reductionism in

scientific thought and inquiry. The complexities and interrelations of

biological mechanisms, on a chemical level, are presenting more

contradictions for reductionists who believe that all phenomena are

capable of being predicted and explained by the laws of physics and

chemistry. Holism argues that the “whole” is primary and often greater

than the individual mechanisms of its components alone. There is a

realization in the scientific community, that considering knowledge of

chemical mechanisms of sole importance is causing hindrance in many

areas of important research. Moreover, increasing evidence indicates

that scientists, who follow reductionism, fail to provide thorough or

accurate explanations in their work. The reductionist approach to

biological research is essentially suboptimal and uncreative according to

Grier (n.d.). This is because reductionist explanations generally dismiss

important biological topics such as homeostasis. As a result, many are

grasping the philosophy of holism in a better attempt to understand the

nature and purposes of phenomena (Schombert 2008).

In terms of evolutionary biology, the holistic approach is advocated

by American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher,

Mitchell, J.L. |4

Stuart A. Kauffman. He believes that the world of science and the study

of evolution cannot be limited to reductionist thought. He had

developed the Kauffman models during his work on the origins of life

and molecular organization. The Kauffman models illustrate what he

defines as “order for free.” This means that the complexity exhibited in

organisms did not evolve solely in terms of natural selection. However,

this complexity co-evolved both by natural selection and a process of

“self organization” exhibited by random networks of genes. Kauffman

(2000) believes that the ability to adapt, is in fact itself, the result of

evolution. He bases this on the notion that it takes certain complexity in

order to evolve, and coevolve with other systems. Therefore, it is

important to include and understand the many interactions between

systems in terms of evolution. No one part can be isolated and studied

properly because of the many interactions associated with its origin,

purpose, and functions. In essence, the importance of interactions and

co-evolution of complexity in systems are regarded as significant factors

contributing to the evolution of species (Kauffman, 2000). The Kauffman

model illustrates his evolutionary theory based on species’ complexity

and is established within the contexts of the paradigmatic holistic

thought approach.

Holism is also being applied to understand the interactions of the

natural world. The holistic view of the natural world attempts to explain

how species associated within the same habitat evolve similarly,

Mitchell, J.L. |5

however, they evolve so as not to destroy the ecosystem in which they

live.

When nonlinearity becomes important, it is no longer possible to proceed by

analysis, because the whole is now greater than the sum of its parts. Non-

linear systems can display a rich and complex repertoire of behaviour, and do

unexpected things - they can, for example, go chaotic . . . There are many

other examples of what might be called the holistic character of non-linear

systems (Davies & Gribbin, 1992)

Therefore, the holistic view of evolutionary biology allows for the

inclusion of chaos, unexpected outside influences, and individual

behavior. Disregarding these variables would most likely produce a

false rationalization for any natural phenomena. Reductionism does not

consider or regard these interactions of importance in finding reason for

environmental or species change. This is the reason scientists are now

regarding holism as a useful too. It aides in them in examination of

relationships with respect to evolutionary ecological studies because, it

addresses the importance of environmental influence on species, and

vice versa. Therefore, the holistic approach to evolutionary biology is

not based on one specific mechanism, such as natural selection.

Rather, it attempts to include natural selection as well as any external

or internal influencing factors.

The holistic thought approach includes both the application of

universal law and the outcomes produced by change and interaction.

Mitchell, J.L. |6

Scientist that practice holism in their research realize the limitations of

following the precise measures defined by certain scientific law,

however, they do not disregard the importance of laws. Instead, they

employ scientific law as a tool in development of their ideas and

research with the inclusion of viewing processes as a whole. The lack of

following a rigid scientific method is why the holistic approach is

considered controversial in the scientific world. Scientists believe that

theories based on holism, such as the “self organizing” model, simply

produces theoretical explanations and fails to provide valid predictions.

A number of scientists categorize holism as “pseudoscience.”

However, it is considered by some to be merely an alternative approach

to science, and not in confliction with the practice of the scientific

method. Rather, it is considered to be a method of interpretation of

evidence and not its derivation thereof. Meaning, scientists may use

the standard scientific method to obtain evidence. In fact, they may

employ methods of reductionism in their research in order to obtain

evidence. However, when examining the results, the interpretations will

include all influential or interacting variables. The evidence will be

analyzed on a “whole” level, rather than breaking down the variables

into independent, non-interacting elements.

The holistic approach to science, allows room for creativity and the

generation of original ideas that are not hindered by the regimented

thought process and precise methods offered by reductionism (Jackson,

Mitchell, J.L. |7

2006). The holistic thought approach does not necessarily challenge

the practical application of the scientific method, nor does it ignore the

significant contributions derived from reductionism. However, it takes

all the constituents that make up a phenomena or species, into account.

The holistic thought approach is absolutely necessary if we are to see

any further progression in science. It is only a matter of time before

there will be paradigmatic shift in reductionist versus holistic thought.

Mitchell, J.L. |8

Works Cited

Anderson, M. H., He, X., Kuramitsu, H. K., Lux, R., Shi, W. 2007. Interspecies

interactions with oral microbial communities. Microbiology and Molecular

Biology Reviews. 71: 653-670.

Davies , P. & Gribbin, J. 1992. The matter myth. Beyond chaos and

complexity. Penguin Books.

Gierer. n.d. Holistic Biology – Back on Stage? Max-Planck-Institute of

Developmental Biology.

Jackson, M. C. 2006. Creative holism: a critical system approach to complex

problem situations. Systems Research and Behavior Science. 23: 647-657.

Kauffman, S. 2000. Investigations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mazzocchi, F. 2008. Complexity in biology. Exceeding the limits of reductionism

and determinism using complexity theory. EMBO reports 9. 1: 10-14.

Schombert, J. Holism and nonseparability in physics. [Internet]. 10 Dec 2008. [cited

10 Mar 2010]. University of Oregon. Available from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/html.
Mitchell, J.L. |9
M i t c h e l l , J . L . | 10