Dictonary.com defines reductionism as:
“the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in
biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic
physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon”
and
“the practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue,
condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or
distorting it.”
I’ve recently begun to wonder if the secular, natural and
scientific—purported to be the holy grail of any advanced, contemporary,
modern-day thinker, and positively not reductionist—is, for all intents
and purposes, actually quite reductionist!
Consider, for a moment.
If statistics show that some Christians no longer believe in
a literal Adam and Eve, are we to deduce that Adam and Eve, therefore, have
been “proven” to have never actually existed?
Isn’t the logic reductionist?
Or, if statistics prove that Coca-Cola is the best-selling
soda, does that automatically make Coca-Cola the best soda? It would be
reductionist to think so.
And, if the National Centers for Health Statistics states
that 31.9% of U.S. women are now having cesarean sections, does it
automatically follow that cesarean sections are a normal and convenient alternative
in how to give birth?
In other words, if something like c-sections are
statistically proven to be widely accepted and practiced, does that alone make it automatically worthy
of positive buy-in and participation, simply because a survey proved that the majority
are in favor of it, or it is in fact already happening?
These stats in “expert” clothing have produced nothing but
reductionist conclusions.
I’ve heard people who loathe absolutes and reductionist
thought say, in the same breath, that they support something solely on
statistical evidence.
But statistics are notorious for reducing complicated issues
down to tidy little nuggets of absolute truth.
And people gobble them up, digesting them into their
worldview and behavior.
But what happens when the statistics change?
One day coffee is a “no-no.”
A year later it’s the greatest thing going.
Dr. Spock’s parenting methods are adopted readily by all in
the 1950’s. Years later, his advice to position sleeping babies on their
stomachs is challenged:
“The stomach-sleeping
philosophy was a part of Dr. Spock’s advice for some years after studies began
to render it suspect. While later editions of Baby and Child Care no longer advocate stomach-sleeping, the bad
advice took its toll on Spock’s reputation as an infallible expert.”
Legacy.com
(note the reference to him as being "infallible").
And then there’s the written-in-stone element to “facts.”
While people continue to quote that “fifty percent of marriages in the United States end in divorce,”
current research disagrees, finding that the divorce rate is actually declining.
One article states that the fifty percent number was a 1980 census prediction
of divorce.
“But, as is the case
with most “facts” that get repeated (and repeated and repeated), that’s (the
50% divorce rate) not quite true.”
From an article by Sarah Jacoby on Refinery29.
Statistics, research and studies are not bad. Life itself is
a research lab where we are constantly trying new things, listening
to other people to gain perspective and counsel, and traveling to expand our
mind and expose ourselves to other cultures.
It’s when the analyses and investigations take
precedence over something that is constant and ultimately true that we
derail ourselves into every wind of teaching, always learning but never
arriving at the truth (Ephesians 4; 2 Timothy 3).
What’s really alarming is when a study, such as one that
made Google headlines recently, lands on the scene as if it were the most
cutting-edge information on the planet, never before revealed! Here’s what this
particular piece of “breaking news”
revealed:
“Want to prolong your
life expectancy by more than a decade? A new study suggests that you can do
just that by following these five healthy habits: never smoke, maintain a
healthy body-mass index, keep up moderate to vigorous exercise, don’t drink too
much alcohol, and eat a healthy diet.” CNN, May 5, 2018
This isn’t news. My great, great, Grandma could have told me
that.
But as I thought about it, I wondered how many people,
especially those growing up in the digital age of Facebook and sound bites, now
wait for a study like this to direct their path. How many people are so reliant
on “statistical evidence” that they
can’t form an opinion or do anything without it!
Many people mock the followers of Jesus because we rely on
Him for our daily guidance and worldview.
But those same people do not see their own religious fervor towards the
“experts” who proclaim odes and axioms on everything from diet to holistic
living:
—advocating almond milk, therefore almond milk must be a
better choice;
—advocating essential oils, so therefore essential oils must
be curative (the latest headlines on the effect of certain essential oils on
babies would refute that);
—or the advocating of the new “open” office—designed to
increase a sense of community touted by social scientists, which is now
backfiring to the point that escape rooms need to be incorporated so employees
can steal away to a quiet place to think or talk on the phone!
Ditto for the letter that, in 1980, cleared the way for
prescription opioids to become the crisis that it is today. In that letter to
the New
England Journal of Medicine, a Boston University Medical Center doctor
and researcher wrote:
“We conclude that
despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of
addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction.” The
Atlantic, June 2, 2017.
(The entire article is worth reading): https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/nejm-letter-opioids/528840/
If we return to the opening of this blog post, and look at
the second definition of reductionism, what happened back in 1980 with the
blatant rubberstamping of painkillers, certainly meets the requirements. It
will go down in history as one of the most notorious cases of scientific
reductionism.
The point is, all the research in the world cannot replace
good old common sense and Godly discernment, a no doubt reductionist line of
thinking that would drive the lovers of stats crazy!
But it was that very common sense that, for me, when I
noticed the unhealthy changes in my body after naively jumping on the almond
milk bandwagon, and finally read the ingredient label (very little almond to
other ingredient ratio) that I jumped off.
I had initially become an almond milk groupie simply because
studies were “proving,” and everyone was obeying, the beverage guru’s decree—that almond milk is much better for you than cow’s milk. I speak
for myself when I say that that just wasn’t true. Feeling healthy and normal
again when I stopped drinking it was all the evidence I needed.
The problem with a statistics-based mindset is that, as with
the almond milk, it makes us gullible.
With no other foundation from which to consider, discern and
test what is good and true and right, what sounds good to us translates in our
mind to what is good.
What someone else has announced as “ideal” is automatically
adopted as our new best friend. And that is reductionism at its worst.
I’ll explore more in the next post.
Copyright Barb Harwood
No comments:
Post a Comment