“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

—“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”—

Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true.

Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations).

So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.)

People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).