What is Holism? holismJune 28, 2021
Holism; It is a philosophical view that suggests that the whole is different and more than the sum of its parts, and is a philosophical term derived from the Ancient Greek word “Holos” meaning “whole, whole”. The word “whole” in English also derives from this root.
According to the understanding of holism, regardless of the area, the whole of a natural system has a different structure from each of its parts and from the subsystems that make up the whole system.
For example, although human biological existence consists of immune system and respiratory system, all human biological existence cannot be determined by these. Because man is a completely different being from each of these systems that compose him. Therefore, the subsystem often performs a function of the upper system.
The basic idea of this approach is to consider the system as a whole. The holistic approach accepts that the parts that make up the system, the relations between the parts and the problems that will arise cannot be separated from each other.
For holism, the problems that occur between elements and relationships are also interconnected, so it can be understood that when a solution is found for one of the problems, the other problems will be solved as well.
According to the understanding of holism, the whole is something other than its parts.
QUINE and HOLISM
Analytical truths are based on relations between ideas (terms). Our understanding of language is enough for us to understand analytical truths. We don’t need to go and see what’s going on in our experience.
On the other hand, when it comes to truths with factual content, it is not enough just to understand the language. Such truths are synthetic. Regardless of what goes on in our sensory experience, we cannot decide whether these statements are true.
This distinction between analytical and synthetic truths divides them into two mutually exclusive groups. That is, a proposition cannot be both analytical and synthetic. Also, a truth is either analytical or synthetic. If a proposition does not express a relation between ideas or a fact, it is meaningless.
In this case, all propositions that cannot be included in either group, including all metaphysical propositions, must be regarded as meaningless.
Let us now consider the two dogmas mentioned by Quine and see more closely how they are mutually related. Let’s take any proposition that has factual content and call it P.
If we proceed from the understanding of meaning of the logical positivists, the meaning of the proposition in question will be its method of verification. Suppose we express the propositions about this verification method as a composite proposition with E.
The dogma that Quine refers to as the second dogma of empiricism says that in this case the following proposition is analytically and descriptively true: P if and only E. Because the meaning of P is reduced to E. Now there can be confirmation or falsification of P and E, which includes its meaning, on the basis of sense experience.
Willard Van Orman Quine
However, there is no need for experience to verify the proposition “P if and only if E”. Because it is analytical and is by definition correct. Is it so?
That’s what Quine is questioning. Looking at proposition P, can our understanding of language enable us to analyze it analytically to proposition E?
Quine’s answer to this question is negative. What terms a term is synonymous with, what its definition is cannot be determined without reference to facts. Trying to define analyticity in such a language by setting aside everyday language and creating a formal system will also be fruitless. For we will have to decide from the outside the rule or rules that will determine which forms of proposition are analytic.
In this case, we should be able to decide what is analytic independently of the formal language. This will bring us back to where we started. Consequently, it cannot be argued that there are analytical propositions that can only be determined on a semantic basis. In this respect, it cannot be mentioned that synthetic propositions can be resolved into propositions that can be verified by direct experience. Both dogmas must be rejected.
Quine thinks that our knowledge is based on sense experience. As such, his rejection of empiricism does not mean that sense experience is not essential for knowledge. What Quine opposes is the atomic determination of the meanings of propositions.
To compare with sensory experience, individual propositions remain a small unit. According to Quine, experience can only be confronted with the whole of science. Now let’s try to understand why.
At this point, Quine’s approach is supported by the French physicist and philosopher Duhem’s underdetermination claims (arguments about the underdetermination of theories by experience). Let’s consider the problem with an example. Let’s say we are given some compound of which we do not know what it contains.
Let’s do some experiments