• What is Reductionism and its limitations having reached its logical limit. India can help by playing to its civilizational strengths if it combines tradition with modernity. You can Read or Hear.

Article by Gautam R. Desiraju and Deekhit Bhattacharya. To hear art (35 minute) Philosophy of Science as Applied to Indian Thought Streams or Link at end of article too. eSamskriti is grateful to Atharva Forum for arranging article and to authors for converting the spoken word into a written one. 

Reductionism is the implicit basis for logic that has permeated most scientific studies worldwide for almost six centuries.

A term that is much used and abused, it can be loosely described as a belief that holds that phenomena can be broken down into smaller components, with eventually some irreducible phenomena or objects forming the basis for reality; the more such subcomponents can be identified and explained, the better will be the understanding of the system as a whole, so goes the idea. The whole becomes equal to the sum of the parts, as it were. Reductionism has indeed served humankind well since the days of the renaissance, and has gone hand in hand with both technological innovation and improved accuracy of instrumentation.

However, are there limits to reductionist thinking, and is that a material constraint to scientific progress?

Reductionism offers a great conceptual framework that can approximate correctness for diverse phenomena. And yet, something very fundamental is askew. One, science is facing a replicability or reproducibility crisis, where up to 70% of scientists across disciplines could not reproduce other scientists’ results, and more than half could not reproduce their own previous results.1 The idea that if one repeats an experiment one ought to get the same result is verily a cornerstone of science.2

While reasons are multifarious, and include outright fraud as well as pressure to publish or perish, one reason may also be due to a fundamentally logical constraint on the methods employed.3 Secondly, science is also facing a productivity crisis, where the scientific productivity of an individual scientist has not increased over a century; In fact, even after the 1980s, individual scientific productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries.4

Such a phenomenon is counterintuitive; humankind’s ability to identify, measure, and observe phenomena at progressively subtler levels and exponentially rising computational abilities ought to boost productivity. Yet, that is not the case. This combination of the reproducibility and productivity crises in science suggests the existence of a deeper malaise. 

The problem is, perhaps, that the reductionist methodological underpinnings of how the scientific method is operationalised have reached their logical limits.

The ultimate demise (or rather, supplanting) of classical mechanics with the advent of the contemporary theories of quantum mechanics and relativity was a serious jolt to the reductionist foundations of scientific praxis. And yet, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Science, the discipline, is essentially a heuristic process driven by a sense of continuity with an intellectual tradition, which at times can be institutionally inflexible (a contradiction to science’s theoretical ideal of a healthy conceptual iconoclasm). Werner Heisenberg, grappling with the disruptive advent of quantum mechanics and his own contributions to the same, wrote “Looking back upon history in this way, we see that we apparently have only a little freedom in the selection of our problems. We are bound up with the historical process; our lives are parts of this process; and our choice seems to be restricted to the decision whether or not we want to participate in a development that takes place in our time, with or without our efforts and contributions.” 5

Heisenberg went as far as to dread the logical constraints posed by isolated, quantifiable, singular and reductionist phenomena which are properly called ‘ideas’ in the Platonic lexicon, being the mathematical constructs upon which most of science’s grand edifice stands upon. Is the twin crisis outlined above a symptomatic manifestation of the reductionist ‘tradition’, being an iterative, stochastic process, not being immune to its death after all?

Let us take a small example. Chemistry, broadly speaking, can, at some level, be understood as a delicate dance between the structure and properties of a substance. At the most gross level, structure corresponds to properties: a gas, being a fluid, will diffuse towards regions of lower concentration. Reductionism dictates that when we break down a substance’s structure, we should be able to understand its properties better. Reductionism wins round one! Yet, as anyone with a working knowledge of some chemistry would know, predicting a substance’s chemical properties simply by having its molecule’s structure is a doomed endeavor. One of the simplest properties of a substance is its melting point; yet this cannot be reliably predicted or even estimated from its molecular structure. To take it even further, understanding the electron, the proton, and the neutron individually helps us little in predicting not just the properties of molecules, but even their structure. Reductionism’s limits are apparent. 

On a more practical note, biomolecular chemists would note that diverse proteins for example, with quite different structures, may end up being similar in critical properties simply due to some amino acids, critically positioned in the polypeptide chain. These regions of ‘similarity’ may not amount to more than 30-40% of the chain. This is because some functions of these critical amino acids are more important than other ‘quieter’ parts of the molecule. Indeed, those engaged in fields adjacent to pharmaceuticals would know that it is mostly better to compare (sometimes large) segments of entire molecules, in a process known better as homology modeling, than expose oneself to the Rube Goldberg scheme of conceptualising problems at atomic levels. 

Had reductionism held, modeling the smaller units (atoms) would have allowed us to do the same with larger ones (molecules), but this is simply not the case. Structure does not always equal property; reductionism leads to a loss of resolution.

The above discussion points towards an innate insufficiency of reductionism in explaining phenomena that exceed a certain modicum of complexity and scale. Complexity here refers to the situation where an entire system’s operation begins to affect the operation of its components or portions. We distinguish here between the terms complicated and complex: complicated systems are predictable and can be understood by looking at their components, while complex systems are unpredictable and require a more holistic understanding of their interdependencies. 6

A hallmark of complex systems is that the system as a whole shapes, modifies, and alters the functioning of individual components in the system. This is opposed to complicatedness, where the term merely refers to a system composed of many components or subsystems, and one can successfully understand the functioning of the system simply by analysing its individual components. Complex systems are difficult to scale, and often self-correct or chaotically undergo unexpected changes to continue working in unexpected ways.

IIT Kharagpur 2022 Calendar-Recovery of the Foundation of IKS.

What is a complex system?

In simple language, it may be defined as consisting of interconnected, dynamic components whose interactions produce emergent behaviors that cannot be predicted from individual parts alone, often adapting to changing conditions and exhibiting non-linear cause-and-effect relationships. They are gestalts marked by redundancies and cross-interacting subsystems.

Complicated systems, on the other hand, may have several subsystems that are nonetheless discrete and identifiable in terms of their functioning.  A complicated system is particularly amenable to reductionist analysis. Taking systems to be complicated enables study in terms of discrete phenomena, components, or subsystems, which is instinctively what most scientists would gravitate towards.

Nonetheless, complicatedness, the basic assumption underlying reductionism, worked well for a rather long time in science since the accuracy of our instruments and the scale of human observations could be captured using complicated models, which needs only reductionist thinking. This ossified as a ‘scientific tradition’, which is maladaptive in a time when the systems which are the subject of most scientific study are recognised as complex systems. Reductionist thinking offers frameworks which can successfully approximate reality and outcomes across a vast range of issues and phenomena. However, these approximations have their limits, and their insufficient approximation of reality leads to them becoming wholly inadequate when dealing with complex systems of appreciable scale.

Take, for example, the problem of how one should arrange the known elements in a sensible manner, whereby one may also be able to appreciate similarities in properties across these elements.

Mendeleev’s periodic table, by no means the first arrangement of the elements, stands out from those of his predecessors (Dobereiner and Newlands warrant particular mention) for the simple reason that not only was he successfully able to accommodate the greatest number of elements until his time in a cogent fashion, but the table was also amenable to grouping elements of similar nature in a fashion that can intuitively communicate some of their properties. 

For example, Mendeleev’s table (flipped sideways compared to the modern rendition), placed sodium and potassium correctly with fellow metals copper and silver. What differentiated Mendeleev’s understanding was also the fact that he left gaps in the table, and predicted not just that these gaps implied that certain elements were awaiting discovery, but even their properties. One such predicted element was what Mendeleev called eka-aluminium, with the Sanskrit eka denoting the yet-unknown element being one place away from aluminium’s position in Mendeleev’s placement.

Expectedly, Western intelligentsia was aghast. When the French aristocrat Paul-Émile François Lecoq de Boisbaudran discovered gallium, he began to spar with Mendeleev, at first refusing to acknowledge that he knew about Mendeleev’s table and then accusing Mendeleev of having stolen the idea from an obscure French scientist. Mendeleev picked apart Lecoq’s data, and insolently retorted, based on the periodic table, that his determination of gallium’s atomic weight and density was wrong. Mendeleev’s chutzpah was not based on any empirical determination, but purely on an intuitive ordering of elements. Lecoq ultimately published a humiliating retraction, stating that his earlier sample was not pure enough, and vindicated Mendeleev’s values to be true. Eric Scerri commented that “The scientific world was astounded to note that Mendeleev, the theorist, had seen the properties of a new element more clearly than the chemist who had discovered it.” 7

Even after being updated for our improved understanding of orbital configurations of atoms at a quantum level, the periodic table we see adorning the walls of chemistry labs worldwide remains in alignment with Mendeleev’s ordering. 8 The denial of the Nobel prize to Mendeleev could be due to the scornful recalcitrance of the West in having to reconcile with someone reaching the right results using what they considered the wrong methods.

Complex systems lend themselves to intuitive thinking instead of complicated systems that are amenable to understanding using rigorous quantitative analysis alone. Invoking intuitive thinking and the oneness of that which has form with that which is formless, one can argue that many great scientific discoveries are due to the inventive genius of creative thinkers, their intuitive thinking being as relevant to science as it is to the work of great artists.

Consider, for example, Faraday's discoveries, Kekulé’s postulation of the cyclic structure for benzene, or the way in which Crick and Watson unravelled the double-helix structure of DNA. Why did Kekulé ask us to dream? Why did Mendeleev confidently predict eka-aluminium and eka-silicon, today's gallium and germanium? Not how, but why? 

To go back to Heisenberg’s concept of the scientific tradition, the selection of problems itself is an iterative process, built and shaped on the drift of the discourse. In essence, a reductionist merely reduces the problem further, with his natural tendency to either further subdivide the solution into discrete problems, or to have an even more microscopic look at it. In essence, a reductionist analyses structures with further granularity, when in fact what he seeks are properties, and the two may not always correlate. In a reductionist paradigm, the focus is on finding more about smaller subdivisions, to approach the paramāṇu in vaiśeṣika terms as the basis of reality itself. It is interesting, perhaps even frightening, to note that vaiśeṣika scholars like Prashastapada had elaborate discussions on why an aṇu existing in and of itself is an illogical (and impossible) exposition, that they are non-localisable, and why the realm of the empirical will always see aṇus in dyads or triads, 9 much like quarks and other ‘fundamental’ particles in modern parlance.

The insufficiency and inadequacy of reductionist thinking in approximating reality are nonetheless only visible at the outer bonds of such methods’ applications. Inadequate reductionist solutions can, at times, be useful nonetheless to a high degree, as convoluted or warped they may be due to their inherent weaknesses. What follows beyond this stage, is outright inability.

The modern world is beset by problems, sometimes as ancient as cancer itself, for which reductionist, intellect-driven thinking may be outright unable to come up with effective solutions. The utility of inherently complex, even intuitive ideas such as supramolecular chemistry, biochemical synthesis, and quasicrystals is unparalleled today. Likewise, we are yet to understand climate and weather patterns in a manner allowing us to predict events across time and space; the additional aspect of climate change muddies the water further.

Many systems which mankind has constructed, such as the internet, have elements of complexity in them as well. It is truly questionable if Mendeleev’s table and prediction could have arrived through purely reductionist thinking, and definitely not Kekulé’s determination of benzene’s structure. Both problems, in and of themselves, are non-linear, and had critical pieces of data (and the means to get such data) absent for reductionist thinking to come up with these solutions. Unsurprisingly, adherents of the reductionist dogma were quick to loathe Mendeleev’s predictions, and resented the fact that he was right. 

The difference between intellectual and intuitive thinking, to paraphrase Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, is that of prioritising communicability versus certainty. 10 Intuitive thinking has been the cornerstone of Bhāratiya knowledge systems, where material reality is both contingent upon the mind as well as the senses, and is simultaneously one with the transcendental. The usual differences of realism and idealism are rendered nugatory, as the nature of reality itself is found to be a gross condensation of the ideal, including in the aforementioned vaiśeṣika view.11

Take even the more practical science of jyotiṣa. While a basic view of the lagna and rāśi charts allows for one to analyse the placement and aspects of grahas, the entire chart is recognised as one cohesive complex system when one uses scoring methods such as the aṣṭakavarga system, where all planets influence each other through multiple modalities and channels, one gets a fuller, more accurate view of things which permits proper analysis.

Reductionism is leading to a scientific stultification, and more alarmingly, is preventing the germination of thoughts which may serve humanity in the decades to come. It is here where India’s civilisational strengths can be the basis of a different avenue of scientific inquiry, along the lines of ancestors which had developed highly sophisticated approaches to scientific and technological advances. In this quest, one cannot expect the West to not be obstructionist; a country can be at its best only when it is itself. Mendeleev could be Mendeleev only because he was Russian and not Prussian.

Alien modes of thought will generally invite hostility. Yet, the proof will be in the pudding, when superior results are delivered regardless of questions concerning ‘methodology’. One must also understand that the doyens of reductionism as an intellectual construct, such as Kant and Descartes, are also the forebears of modern Western political thought which has inflicted travails of hyper individualism and rejection of civilisational governance globally. Such a zeitgeist is both alien and anathema to Bhārat’s destiny. The digital world, based on binaries, is again giving way to an analog world which is more fuller in its experience and cognition.

In one way, Goethe’s zarte empirie, which correctly placed intuition, imagination, and inspiration within science, and where science was to be more descriptive of natural harmony instead of studying artificial phenomena synthesised as approximate subsets of nature, were the dying embers of the Greco-Roman scientific tradition which was similar that of Bhāratiyas. 12

Bhārat urgently requires a thorough recalibration of both the education system and the scientific complex, such that children can successfully leverage their innate cultural thinking to benefit the nation and the world. The ghost of Macaulay and all that followed must be exorcised, and modern tools must be absorbed by the ancient line of thinking which animated Nagarjuna and Aryabhatta. In the dying light of reductionism stands India’s chance at taking the lead through its civilisational perfection of intuitive thought. The only way that can happen is if we become finally bold enough to abandon the beaten path and upend the entire spectrum of intellectual activity, from textbooks to labs. 

Instead of paying lip service to Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), an honest attempt at operationalizing Swami Vivekananda’s vision of what a confident Bhārat ought to be, and how it ought to think—a grand synthesis of modernity and tradition. What is needed is not another garbled policy document, but confidence, and more so, courage.

“I worship Shiva in whom ideas of cause and effect,

Thoughts and impresses and countless varied forms become the Real One.

I worship Him in whom—when the wind of change is calmed—

There is neither within nor without.

I worship Him who is the perfect stillness of the Mind.”

— A hymn to Shiva, Swami Vivekananda

Gautam R. Desiraju is an Emeritus Professor in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru and Distinguished Visiting Professor in UPES, Dehradun. Deekhit Bhattacharya is an Associate at Luthra and Luthra Law Offices India, Delhi. This essay is based on a talk delivered by GRD in The Atharva Forum on 16 June 2022 in Delhi.

To hear art (35 minutes) Philosophy of Science as Applied to Indian Thought Streams

References

1. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility | Nature

2.  The Value of Direct Replication - Daniel J. Simons, 2014

3. Understanding and tackling the reproducibility crisis – Why we need to study scientists’ trust in data - ScienceDirect

4. Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century | PLOS ONE

5. Heisenberg, W. (1975). The great tradition: End of an epoch? Encounter, 44(3), 52–58.

6. R. R. Nason, It's Not Complicated: The Art and Science of Complexity in Business (University of Toronto Press, May 2017), pp 248.

7.  Gallium: It Proved That Dmitri Mendeleev, Father of the Periodic Table, Wasn't a Crackpot

8. Scientific Explorer: History of the Periodic Table Part 1: From Alchemy to Mendeleev

9. https://thevyasa.in/prashastapada/

10. An Idealist View Of Life : Radhakrishnan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

11. Microsoft Word - roopa5.doc

12. “Zarte Empirie”: Goethean Science as a Way of Knowing | by Daniel Christian Wahl | Age of Awareness | Medium

Also read

1. Indian Knowledge System Vol 1 by Kapil Kapoor and A K Singh

2. Dr D S Kothari Institute

3. Video Atharva Transferring Knowledge to Knowhow

4. IIT Kharagpur calendar – The Science of Indian Knowledge Systems

5. 2022 IIT Kharagpur calendar – Recovery of the Foundations of Indian Knowledge Systems

6. How Sanskrit played a role in the discovery of Mendeleev's periodic table