Essay: Anti reductionism-causation
Ideally, Anti-Reductionism refers to the view that causation cannot be analyzed non-nomically . Furthermore, anti-reductionism asserts that causation still resists analysis even when the non-causal, nomic concepts are made available. In other words, the proponents of anti-reductionism doctrines affirm that there can be no accurate and reliable non-causal analysis of causation. The roots of anti-reductionism can be traced back to late 19th and early 20th centuries with key figures such as Peterson seen as the precursors to contemporary anti-reductionisms. In his remarkable example, Peterson states that:
If a person asks him what causation is, he can reply that he think it is simple; “unanalyzable relation, not derived from anything or resolvable into anything else. Of course, any man is free to analyze the relation if he can, but it is not likely that any one thereafter will succeed where thinkers who were able such as David Hume failed”
Such sentiments gave rise to the field of anti-reductionism based on the realized inability to reach a more fulfilling and a compelling definition of the causation. For instance, Bolender (1995) notes that human cognitive ability to think can state the genus of causality in terms of it are a relation. But, the undoing part of it is that it cannot give the essential difference of the causal relation except in some question-begging synonym. For example, we are able to state that causality is the character of the process in which one thing produces another; this assertion are true, but are inadequate to qualify for a formal definition. In this regard, there are various arguments for and reactions against these arguments that will form center stage for this paper. In this regard, this paper shall present its argument in support for anti-reductionism.