Had its day?
Saying we need A instead of B is rather simplistic, don’t you think? What area are you talking about?
Yes, had it’s day 🙂
Reductionist techniques have taught ‘us’ a lot about our world, it’s place in the universe and the creatures that inhabit it etc.
But, and IMO it’s a BIG but, it is now proving to be a barrier to advancement (in Life Sciences) as, on an operational front it discourages cross disciplinary exchanges and encourages a “big fish, small pond” way of thinking in which research groups are increasingly encouraged to become ‘centres of expertise’ rather than collaborators in larger projects.
On the scientific front, it is becoming ever more apparent that (again in Life Sciences) that the ‘mini-machine’ view of life is just not applicable to anything other than the most elementary of systems, and often only when these systems are investigated out of context.
There is a need to increase contextual scientific studies rather than divide the existing field of knowledge into ever decreasing areas of study if any useful new information is to be found, so ‘turn the telescope around’ if you like.
Life exists in context not detail, systems are important not components, environments/niches matter not species and so on…
And yes, I am being simplistic because primarily that’s the way to start discussions, secondly it’s a mixed audience and finally this is stw remember and the thread will descend into name calling/point scoring soon enough and I don’t want to get drawn in too deeeeeep or I’ll get distressed and Elfish 😉
Oh postscript, I meant ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’ which is why I said “need to start thinking…”