The genus–differentia definition offered by many dictionaries characterizes reductionism as a philosophical position that asserts that complex structures and functions can simply be described by the properties and laws of each element. For instance, human behavior can be described as the result of neurological functions, which are caused by chemical interactions of neurotransmitters, which finally obey the laws of physics. Thus everything in nature can be reduced to physical laws.
Wikipedia gives tree definitions of the term philosophical, methodological, and ontological. The methodological approach is rather equivalent to the analytical approach, and will be tackled there. Here, we will cover the philosophical view.
Fauceir theory has an ambivalent relationship to reductionism. On one hand, fauceir theory provides clear evidence against reductionism, on the other hand, it might be called a reductionist theory itself. This ambivalence is due to the fact that among philosophers, reductionists and critics, there is no clear definition of the reductionistic epistemological process.
Fauceir evidence against reductionism
As fauceirs consist of their own set of element fauceirs they of course inherit some behavior of their sub fauceirs, but can never be sufficiently explained by their sub-fauceirs behavior alone. Restrict description to the behavior of sub-fauceirs would ignore all the higher level fauceirs involved.
Illustration
This is illustrated by the following graph.
Master fauceir C contains two sub-fauceirs A and B that have properties of interaction among a0..a3 and b0..b3 respectively. Master fauceir C has additional properties c0..c4 (here shown as arrows), and only the latter are specific of fauceir C, so when studying C it is safe to ignore the interactions in each sub fauceir and focus on specifics only.
Real example
When studying the chemical reaction,
[Error: Macro 'mathequation' doesn't exist]
we might be interested that in case of carbon excess or oxygen deficiency the reaction
[Error: Macro 'mathequation' doesn't exist]
is more likely to occur.
When we try to establish a quantitative rule for these reactions it is not necessary to consider the carbon isotope, and that a tiny amount of carbon will end up in an other isotope can be safely ignored. This is helpful to know for carbon dating, for instance.
Conclusion
The following transformations may happen to sub-fauceir's properties when studying the master.
In the context of a master fauceir some of the sub-fauceir's properties lose their importance, because of down reagulation or compensation by the master.
Some properties may be even enhanced and gain new regulatory functions.
As each control adds impression to the error of the master control studying them separately and ignoring compensatory steps in the chain would lead to a sitiuation in which the object is not measurable any more. This by the way is the fauceirologigal interpretation of the uncertainty principle.
