Looking at this excessively cited dissertation (below), I can’t help but think that thesis writings are no better than 4 chan memes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan You or your paper survives on the very basis of being cited. I still remember what someone said of 4chan’s message boards: It is just a repost of posts.

That’s right. The fittest survive. Especially in an ultra-active message board with no archives and limited page space. You repost what you like and what you think deserves a more permanent spot in there.

And then again, the very (rebellious) thought of this can be a thesis. SIGH. And the medium is indeed the message. With this, I resign. I’m getting this over and done with. You (or rather I) can never get out of philosophy by ‘fighting’ against it. By ‘fighting’ against it, you are meta-philosophising. If you ‘fight’ against meta-philosophy, you are meta-meta-philosophising.

I think the only way to get out is to conduct a spin-off like the natural sciences and just ignore the entire franchise. Ignore your ‘roots’. And get mocked by the self-important, life-sucking philosophy… of science. I think philosophy has a terrible complex. I’m through with it. It’s more than that of a nagging parent or an equivocating old person (though no offense to old persons and parents)— it just— doesn’t.get.it.

I think my topic is: “Microbiology and Medicine: A Case Study on the Interconstruction of Reductionism and Holism in Foundationalist Science”. Or something like that. According to the whims of my tutor.

——————————————————————————————

“Because organisms and their environments form complex integrated systems, the most robust biology will be an integrative biology (Ruse 1989; Russert-Kraemer and Bock 1989; Savageau 1991). Organisms and their environments are studied (of necessity) on many hierarchical levels -for instance the focal unit of biological organization can be a gene, cell, organism, population, or species, depending on the focal level of study (Jacob 1977; Bock 1989). Scientific explanations rely on establishing causal relationships among units of study (Bock 1989). One the most fundamental methodological differences between reductionist and integrative biology is in models of causality. Reductionist biology has a much more restrictive model of causality than does integrative biology. The reductionist model is one of unidirectional causation (Fig. 1.1). [1 sentence of 2 lines deleted] Reductionism assumes that effects at higher levels of biological organization can always be reduced to causes at lower levels (Jacob 1977). For instance, the reductionist approach assumes that effects at organismal level can always be reduced to causes at the gene level.  In the integrative model, causality can occur from the highest levels to the lowest: temperature dependent sex determination is an example of how the environment can affect gene expression (Ewert et al. 1994; Lang and Andrews 1994; Viets et al. 1994). Only one of many possible directions of causation is from gene to organism. In this sense, integrative biology encompasses the methods of reductionist biology but goes much farther. Reductionist biology has made tremendous advances in the “parts catalog” (Savageau 1991) of life. However, the reductionist approach has failed to make significant progress in the study of complex systems (Savageau 1991).”

Advertisements