There have been numerous debates about approaches to holism and reductionism approaches. Many scientists will refuse to be reductionists when asked even when reductionism is at the center of the scientific revolution. Although there are significant variations in the components of the two approaches, evidences point to the interrelationship between them as well as their complementarities. The paper discusses both holism and reductionism in detail and further highlights the significant differences between them. That will be applicable to future occurrences to avoid imprudent extrapolation and enhance further research. What matters most is if an approach has the ability to elaborate and predict issues concerning the real world. The paper also analyzes systems thinking as well as the role it has on problem resolution.
There are various methods whose development by academics, practitioners and professionals were to address aspects of organizations. There are significant contrasts between reductionism and holism. Reductionism concerns itself with the phenomenon of the complex interactions within a body rather that the study of isolated portions 0n the other hand, holistic approach does not linger on single and independent causes. The approach strays from the general size of the body to non—directional interactions within it. The comprehensive approach asserts that the whole body is a summation of its individual parts. Many scientists refuse to characterize their work as reductionist in nature.
Even holism receives much- anticipated unpopularity due to its association with the holistic nature of modern pseudoscience. Nonetheless, there is the advent of a description of holism in a more acceptable way and it is called systems approach. It explains the interconnection between cellular and the contents of an organism. That way their structure and dynamics’ examination is in intact cells and organisms that don’t need dissection into individual parts Holism is the approach that looks at an object as a whole. The human sensory is more often than not reductionist in nature because it consists of individually differentiated sensations, That makes the holism a gradual phenomenon. Holisrn argues that the fundamental unit of an organism is its whole and the knowledge of its constituents is unnecessary and insufficient to understand the whole system.
127 our experts are availableright now
With the approach, there is the assumption that little information is in requirement for individual components of a system as long as the understanding of the whole being is in place its description relies on a fact that there is an attempt to understand individual components of a body by first grasping with an understanding of the whole system first. The history of holism travels back to the years of Aristotle, the father of taxonomy He observed that the whole is more than just a summation of individual parts of an organism. Another scientist later supported his argument by adding that holism is a tendency in nature to come up with whole systems that are greater than the sum of the individual parts. There has been more use of systems approach in recent history in contrast to the older past. Some biologists emphasize the ability of whole systems to give rise to emergent new characteristics unpredictable from examination of individual parts of the systems.
An example derives from the inability of detailed knowledge about water and its molecular structure to predict surface tension, which is a macroscopic phenomenon showing emergent character among water molecules. Reductionism. This approach argues that whole systems are always in the properties of their constituent parts It further argues that the knowledge and understanding of these elements are both necessary and sufficient for understanding of the whole. Reductionism maintains that all systems and objects consist of individual primary components that help us gain insight into the systems by analyzing the different parts Reductionism research is primarily on choice and analytical fragmentation of the research specimen, method of observation and the research strategy employed. The fragmentation of the specimen/ object is in two components, namely domain and assertion.
The field includes a division of the sample into research units that are in further division into observation units, the assertion has basis on a set of theoretical concepts. These concepts are relations between individual parts of the systems and their relationships. The parts are in the subdivision into variables that act as observation units for collection of data. The reductionism technique gains insight by analyzing these data sets. Reductionism has epistemological, ontological and methodological meanings. Epistemological meaning addresses the connection of one scientific department to another (Dzombak, Mehta, Mehta & Bile’n, 2014). it has the definition of an idea that the information about one scientific area can face reduction to another system of scientific knowledge. Thus, different scientific disciplines have interrelations and universal principles but continue to exist differently because their best understanding is on individual levels.
The ontological meaning of reductionism defines reductionism as an idea that every biological system has nothing but constituent molecules and their personal interactions. The third meaning, methodological reductionism, describes the idea of complicates systems that are understandable by the use of analysis of their simpler components. The approach has traces back to the early 17th Century when there was a proposal that principles derived from individual cases are probably applicable to make general predictions. Later, there was another suggestion that one should divide every hardship into various numerous parts to make it feasible and easy to resolve it. There have been widespread successes to the reductionist approach in the last half of the 20th Century that are undeniable. However, there are still limitations to the methodological approach of reductionism.
There are issues concerning systems thinking, analysis, and the scientific method. These issues have been there for over two decades now concerning the role of systems thinking. Some people argue that the scientific method is the widest spread interpretation as dialectic between the analysis and genesis in support by the triadic logic of CS Pierc. Apparently, the role of systems thinking is to frame the dialectic. There are three major forms of the system concept including closed, input-output, and open systems, Systems’ thinking has a major play in the mainstream science. Asystems best definition would be as a cognitive build for making sense of complex and organizational knowledge, The contemporary system thinking identifies as ethical, use of open systems in pursuit of knowledge. Systems‘ thinking has been useful in the most difficult types of problem resolutions.
These involve complex issues that depend greatly on the past, others that depend on the action of others and others that arise from ineffective coordination of the characters involved. Systems thinking can be helpful in helping situations where human deprivation and poverty around the world are on the rise. Traditional—based methods that focus on alleviating poverty and enhancing the standard of quality life are no longer working. Systems thinking can be useful to navigate the chaos in social ventures in developing societies. There is the lack of clear roles, responsibilities and returns for various investors. These problems worsen the chaos and contribute to the failure of projects in these communities. Systems thinking can be useful to establish accountability techniques; equity for the stakeholders involved and enhances system sustainability.
In holism, there are no analytical subdivisions of the research object into subunits and variables while the reductionism is variable-oriented with the division of the research object into variables for observation of data sets. Another difference is that in the holistic approach, the researcher’s interest lies in collective characteristics of the whole system rather than in the separate division of characters of individual components In reductionism, the researcher focuses on one or a few aspects of a system at a time while holism will have a tendency to look at an object as a whole.
A holistic research entails a strategy that uses the principle of qualitative study and comparisons as compared to the quantitative comparison in reductionism, Conclusion Reductionism and holism are complementary and have a few interdependenciesi Reductionism is useful in simple systems to allow accurate predictions while holism studies require mechanistic knowledge from earlier reductionist research, Conclusively, we can argue that no approach is more significant than the other. Whether an approach is holistic or reductionist, one should first consider the limitations of their undertakings in that particular method. There is advancement in emphasis on pathways, networks and systems that give rise to powerful novel bioinformatics and experimental methods.
