Talk:Holism

Atomism vs. Holism?

I'm sorry for deleting the part about holism vs. atomism, but to me it contradicts the whole idea of holism. That way, holism would mean pure and simple ignorance of science, which does not at all have to be the case - only that holsim may regard science as too limiting in some respects of life. So why should atomism be opposing holsim? Since "the whole is more than the sum of its parts (...) and every part is seen as the whole (...)" (Susun Weed), don't atoms make perfect sense? The Growl 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quote for the notion of cause in Aristotle,

according to Joseph E. Earley, Sr. in "ON THE RELEVANCE OF REPETITION, RECURRENCE, AND REITERATION", cause does not connotes the effect part, it means something more close to reason, an explanation, the effective part is more recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.60.118 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, someone wasn't happy with my deleting the atomism-thesis. Maybe you could tell me the reason why? I really don't get why one should say holism opposes atomism! The Growl 11:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there **is** an opposition (or complementarity) between holism and atomism, which matches the opposition between "qualitative" and "quantitative." In atomism and quantitative thinking, the parts add up exactly to the whole, and there is nothing else to be said. (This is strongly related to related to logical positivist schools of thought.) The parts are separate independent entities (atoms), and the whole is at best an "emergent property" of the parts being together in their entity. This kind of thinking is fine for clockwork, but falls short in explaining holograms and life, to name just two things. It's not that this kind of thinking (or mode of consciousness) is wrong, but it is not complete, and it does a disservice by claiming that it is complete. At that point, it becomes dogma.

Henri Bortoft, who studied physics with David Bohm, is one of the clearest expounders of these ideas (Owen Barfield, too, but not quite as directly), and goes further into explaining how these modes of thinking work and where they are most useful. He credits the philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer as a major source.—Preceding |unsigned]] comment added by 64.131.43.189 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The emergence theory clearly explains that the sum of the parts brings new characteristics to the parts and as a whole they are more than the arithmetical sum.

The mathematical study can not explain things that are not measurable. Feelings emotions value systems are all qualitative and binary.You can not apply mathematics to them.

Then there is the causal language that needs to understand the role of each part with relation to the whole which can not be arrived at mathematically. Coexistencial-Reality (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal Essay

I'm no expert in academic holism, but I think the "hierarchy of holons" is only one model of holism, and a very limited/limiting one, at that.

When I look at reality, it is clear that I (a holon) am directly part of (a) three families (one by birth and two by marriage or partnership), (2) the earth's oxygen cycle, (3) a network of people using this wiki, and (4) a specific bioregion in Oregon, This simply doesn't fit into the supposed "hierarchy of holons". The fact is that overlapping fields and webs of holons co-exist with this supposed hierarchy of holons.

My protest is, of course, partially motivated by resistence[sic] to the use of this hierarchical theory to maintain that reality is itself primarily hierarchical and therefore we should accept that hierarchy is an intrinsic aspect—or even the proper organizing principle—of society. I'm afraid both reality and society are much bigger than that. They include and transcend hierarchies. -63.187.224.214

Quality of Article, proposed rewrite

I'm sorry, but I feel that this is a terrible article. It's going to need a major re-write. It is POV, inaccurate, and incomplete. A stub would have been better than what I see here. I mean nothing personal toward the contributor, who I'm sure has written fine articles in other areas, but this particular article will not do. -Nat 16:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I made a contribution to the current article a long time ago. I had not looked at it since then. I agree with you, and look forward to your article. Perhaps you may consider creating an article on General Smuts, to put the content you might find relevant for it. Anthère

Sorry, but the import of this argument: "Another phenomenon which plays different roles in reductionist/holistic medicine is what is know in the west as the placebo effect. In the west this refers to patients who become "cured" of their illnesses after being prescribed sugar pills in place of medicine. The active phenomenon at work here is the brain's role in physical health, holistic philosophy utilizes this mechanism within the brain in its medical practice while reductionist medicine seeks to decrease its influence as much as possible." is simply incorrect (to put it mildly). The placebo effect is merely that -- and effect -- it is in no way "caused" by anything in anyone's (or indeed any animal's) brain. Nrubdarb (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

General Jan Smuts section cut

"Below a[sic] brief overview of this remarkable man and a summay[sic] of his "Theory of Holism"

General Smuts had a very much wider experience of life than was usual for an educated man of his time… He was born on a farm In the Western Cape. He attended school for only five years before going on to Victoria College In Stellenbosch where he attained a combined degree In Arts and Science. He was awarded the Ebden scholarship to Cambridge University where he read Law. At Cambridge he distinguished himself by being the only person ever to have written both parts of the Law Tripos in one year and achieve a Double First. He won the George Long Prize for Roman law and Jurisprudence.

He was appointed State Attorney in Paul Kruger's Transvaal Republic at the time of the developing friction within the Republic with the "uitlanders" who had strong affiliations to Britain and Germany.

He became a successful Boer general during the Anglo-Boer War. After the war he was a senior administrator and negotiator, pressing for reconciliation between Boer and Briton in South Africa, his reconciliation policy was really a practical form of intellectual holism, He played the part of conciliator more and more clearly from then on. In 1917 he put forward the idea of a Commonwealth of Nations, which would replace the old concept of Empire, This world-embracing application of societal holism was a masterstroke, as it produced a unique blend of loyalty to the Crown plus the national pride of the component countries. Smuts and Botha's convictions on the need for reconciliation with the defeated Germany after World War I were not heeded. Smuts predicted that the Versailles Treaty would be the prelude to the next Great War.

Smuts holistic philosophy is also evident in the pivotal role he played in the foundation of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, organisations which would strive for world peace.

To all this must be added Smuts' grasp of the science of his day. In Jan Christian Smuts we find a unique combination of intellect, talent and experience. We are fortunate that he expounded his life view in the philosophical approach, which he called HOLISM."

I cut this, which should be merged with the Jan Smuts page—all this as preliminary to editing down the rest. -Charles Matthews 10:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Further big cut

"When examining HOLISM one studies the formation and the functioning of combinations (wholes). These wholes, in their turn, combine with others to form more complex combinations. It is clear that this is quite different from scientific analysis, which deals with separating the parts of combinations. Thus HOLISM is natural; an ever-present process using energy, a process of combining, not just mixing, which creates original material by evolutionary processes. This "material" can even be abstract, like music or philosophy.

To elaborate on point (iii), one must grasp the fact that the components sometimes surrender the characteristics they had before combining, and that the combination is a different substance e.g. sodium and chlorine, harmful to man individually, when combined as common salt, are an essential part of man's diet, or, hydrogen and oxygen, two explosive gases, combine to form water, a substance which is essential to life and which has very different behaviour and uses from the two gases. Combinations go on to form further, more complex, combinations. Think of the chain of events in which inanimate minerals nourish living cell material (like grass), which nourishes cattle, which, with their milk and meat, nourish people. (Very complex organisms), who have the ability to create, both in the material and the abstract sense.

To elaborate on point (ii), at the most basic level, these combinations are formed by the fortuitous proximity of materials, and the occurrence of natural phenomena, such as heat, cold, pressure, light, drought or saturation, giving chemical combinations (like metallic oxides).

At a higher level, all living cells assimilate these chemicals, and, stimulated by the phenomena, regenerate themselves in accordance with their life cycle. We enter here the realm in which one life depends on another for survival—lions eat buck; fleas feed on animal blood; one plant is a parasite on another. You can see that the plants and animals are wholes in themselves but are also the interdependent parts of greater and more complex wholes, such as an environmental system. Think how complex a forest is and how important it is that it is healthy and keeps the rivers that flow through it clear. At the human level, the elements of intellectual diversity (choice, compatibility, imagination etc.) enter the picture.

People can choose with whom they wish to associate, to what extent and for what purpose. Experience has shown that people who come together for a purpose will often produce ideas and select a course of action very different from the ideas held by anyone individual before the meeting.

This is understood, correctly, as creative evolution, and the combination is said to be "greater" than the sum of the parts." A deeper study of Smuts' definition shows up an anomaly, which disturbed Smuts himself. It is the phrase "greater than the sum of the parts". The difficulty lies with the scientifically established facts that energy is not lost, and that the energy-mass aggregate is constant.

Smuts was aware that there was an immeasurable aura of possibilities round each part, and suggests that in these auras, when combined, the apparent creative evolution takes place, which makes the whole "greater".

(Other authors, particularly Lourens van der Post and Konrad Loerenz, draw attention to the existence and importance of the immeasurable in life.) So perhaps we are left with substituting "different" from "greater than".

At the time Smuts was writing, in 1924, the general public was very much aware of three major scientific debates. They were

1. Einstein's theory of relativity, which emphasised that the universe is a very large whole.
2. The general composition of the atom; a small, very powerful whole.
3. Darwin's theory of evolution, which showed how, a variety of species evolved from a common ancestor.

Smuts' work collected these theories into a major observation. The nations, who had been enemies during World War I, formed an International body to keep world peace, the League of Nations. It was an attempt to use the immense power of the Holism process to prevent the development of evil power.

Sadly, it failed, but a lesson was learned; that in the human field, the outcomes of the holistic process are not always and automatically benevolent. Constant intellectual guardianship is required to direct and adjust the process towards the declared goal, such as lasting peace. "So", you ask, "what use do I make of all this knowledge of Holism?"

First, you can recognize well-functioning wholes when you see them and protect them from damage and even help them forward. These could be flourishing parts of the environment, well-run farms or industries, happy families or contented communities.

Second, you could look for wholes that are not functioning well and are damaging others. These you could set about trying to improve, Examples would be people damaging the environment by polluting it, removing fuel wood without a replanting programme, or uncontrolled open-cast mining.

Third, you could make sure that all the groups of which you are a member, use the tremendous power they have, for the good of those around them, and of their environments,

This is not always easy but it gets easier the more success you have. There are some further thoughts connected with Holism well worth studying. A few are:

1. Dead material can support life. Grass that will never grow again feeds cattle; bread keeps us alive; medication restores health, and so on.
2. Holism is closely linked to systems engineering.
   • A car has a fuel system, an ignition system, a propulsion system and many others. The parts undergo no change themselves, surrender none of their characteristics, but combine to form a motoring system with the possibility of controlled powered motion.
   • When people are brought together synergistically, it is very close to Holism. Although the effect of the people working together is said to be greater than the sum of their individual efforts, there is no creation of original material.
3. Nature, as a whole, is less wasteful than any of its parts taken separately. For example, there are many species of fish that lay thousands of eggs at a spawning. Many are not fertilized and they become food for other species. Further down the line, many of those fertilized are eaten before reaching maturity by sea birds or seals.
4. No life is independent. No man is an island. Life is always drawing on the rest of nature to sustain itself. Think of how dependent we all are on rain, fresh air and on the events of day and night, to say nothing of our dependence on each other.
5. Perfection is sterile. Perfection is taken as that state that neither gives off, nor consumes, energy. That is an unachievable state for any living whole and even the components of atoms are in constant motion. It is thus very interesting that sterile, inanimate substances can support life.

Once you have grasped the idea that the Universe is composed of functioning wholes, of differing sizes and with different parts to play, and that we are ail parts of these wholes, you will appreciate that there is nothing daunting in the idea of Holism. It is simply a way of looking at life which helps you to see that life is systematic, not without purpose, and that you, as an intelligent part of it, have a responsibility to make your input creative, constructive and conservative of existing good."

I think this makes the current page sensible again. -Charles Matthews 16:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Issues

• Holism is enormously controversial. The article does state that there are opposing views, but it provides reasons for holism and gives no sense or pointers to the reasons for denying it.
• Several kinds of holism are ignored: epistemological, semantic, ethical.
• Metaphysical holism is an ambiguous term; ontological would be preferable. The discussion would benefit from being treated side-by-side with epistemological holism.

There's some good material here, but overall the article needs work. Not too much work, though. Too busy to start now, though -Charles Stewart 05:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Wholism stub

There is now a religion stub at Wholism. Is it time for a disambiguation page? DDerby 07:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have modified the holism definition page to include wholism. In my view holism and wholism whilst having some similarities also have major differences and should not be confused with each other.

Though I know little about wholism/holism, your edit, 203.220.118.59, seems to take the middle of a description of wholism and say "this is Wholism", thus making the article no longer make sense. Could someone knowledgeable decide if this is a proper edit? DDerby 05:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Differences between Holism and Wholism

I can't understand the differences between Wholism and Holism. If I can't, I expect most readers can't. Can someone add something about the differences, or confirm that they don't exist? DDerby 05:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that they are just two diffrent spellings of the same term. There is a link on the Wholism page to a website that claims that wholism is a religion, but a single website does not a religion make. The Wholism article was started by an anonymous user and it was his only edit. --Goethean 17:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Holism is the idea that the properties of a system cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its components alone.
• Wholism is a religious philosophy/lifestyle based on the principle that God is the Whole. -203.220.117.212

Creationism?!

Some critics claim holism is an attempted merger of creationism (creative tendency) and evolutionism (creative evolution).

I've never heard this. Anyone know who claims this? --Goethean 15:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To me this sounds more like something that Wholism attempts. -[[User:203.220.116.139|203.220.116.139] 23 April

it may be difficult to find it in writing, but it is a suspicion that a lot of more "traditional" analytic philosophers will carry Wireless99 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Durkheim and Holism

I have found sources that point out Durkheim's reference to the concept of holism as the whole being greater than the sum of the parts in his books Rules of Sociological Method (1895, p. 102) and Suicide (1897), but without actually using the term. If a source for his use of the word "holism" cannot be found, we should change the sense of the text. --Blainster 20:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on interdisciplinarity/holism

Are there any thoughts on how to distinguish between interdisciplinarity and holism in science? Is the difference merely emotional? Does holism sound confrontational, while interdisciplinarity is neutral? --Smithfarm 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Holism is a stronger term, implying that the world or cosmos is such that valid investigation must avoid reductionism. Interdisciplinarity can merely mean that different fields of study should co-operate, a comparatively weak claim. — goethean ॐ 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of the article's balance, requires expansion

Article just needs some futher expansion and still lacks balance. But I'm tired. -Lacatosias 15:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I know many of the arguments against holism in the social sciences: the tendeny to undervalue, if not eliminate, the importance of the individual; collectivist conformism; too abstract a level of analysis, etc.. The arguments against semantic holism are all listed in the article I wrote for semantic holism. I just can't think of any sources right now, damnit. Something needs to be added in this respect though. Hello, is anybody out there??--Lacatosias 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Lacatosias. Good to see that someone else is interested, too. But I think the following text (from the beginning part of article) is really too limiting, and too strong - it implies metaphysical AND epistemological definition of holism, whereas the concept is used in epistemological OR ontological sense - and in a more or less strong sense. The entity certainly exists without the system, holism or not.

FROM ARTICLE: "According to holism, in other words, it is the system as a whole which posseses a metaphysical and epistemological privilege, in the sense that an entity does not exist except as a part of that system."

BTW: more modern term for "metaphysical" would be "ontological" -User:Jussi Hirvi 18 February 2006

Yes, I didn't feel very confortable with that myself. I was expecting someone to object to the non-existence part. It's just what I felt like expressing at the time with organic theory of the state in my subconscious for some reason.--Lacatosias 17:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lakatosias - good corrections. As you see, I was trying to simplify the language a bit - that's why I took out reference to "ontological & epistemological" from the beginning of article. No need to scare the reader off right at the start, right? :-)

I think this article starts to look pretty good, but the biology part is still missing. I put the heading there already, but there's no content yet. It's historically important - I think holism popped up in the vitalism/organicism/mechanism dispute before WW2, and Smuts' holism was a part of it. Bertalanffy with his General System Theory was part of that dispute, too. So, as I see it, biology was a central stage for the holism discussions before WW2. Who would volunteer? :-) User:Jussi Hirvi 13 March 2006

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, I don't know very much about this specific aspect of the wholism debate. I can look around for some resources, but it would be better if someone more knowledgable in history of biology could write this up.--Lacatosias 10:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Holistic therapies?

There is a list of medical therapies in the article described as "holistic". I find it interesting that among them acupuncture, Qi Gong, and Reflexology do not mention the word holism in their own article, which suggests their placement in the list, rather than being just alternative medicine, is dubious. Comments? --Blainster 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The very nature of the term Holism is inclusive of all interconnected systems and their processes; so to include every diverse process or methodology that contributes to the flux of the Whole - must be implied in the specific meaning Holism. --Dialectic 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are different degrees of holism (see holon). Also some concepts are holistic, while others are not. Reductionism is largely the antithesis of holism. Among a list of healing methodologies, some are reductionistic and others are holistic. Proponents of these methods may be unaware of the concept of holism, in which case their articles should be improved, or alternatively, their methods may not be holistic. Without analysis, the paragraph becomes merely a laundry list. --Blainster 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Holistic living

Please merge any relevant content from Holistic living per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holistic living. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 05:25Z

Proposed correction: Ari said "other than", not "more than the sum of", the parts....

Just a small (?) correction/suggestion from a newbie:

Aristotle's famous comment on the nature of the "whole" is well-nigh universally misquoted -- as in the "holism" page I got routed to from a search on "holistic" -- as being "more" than "the sum of" the parts. What he actually said on the subject, and in one place alone (!) -- Metaphysica 10f-1045a -- I recently learned from some online searches is best translated as "besides" or "other than", as in this fairly authoritative translation: "In the case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something *besides* the parts, there is a cause;..." (from my "Basic Works of Aristotle", McKeon, Random House 1941, pg. 818; emphasis mine)

This in regard to "the difficulty...with respect both to definitions and to numbers, what is the cause of their unity?", and as brief prelude to: 1) his inquiry into the nature of such cause; 2) a concise analysis and reframing of the underlying issues; and, 3) his exposition of a generic process theory of becoming, whereby some aspect of a pre-existent field of "potentiality" is brought into "actualization" through some "agency" -- the famous "hylomorphic" theory of emergent unity (or unities, i.e. entities), whereby "one element is *matter* and another is *form*" (line 23, emphases mine).

This central doctrine of universal becoming seems designed to respond to both the influential logical paradox raised by Parmenides ("there can be neither manifestation nor change; both are illusion") and to some perceived weaknesses in Plato's theory of the manifestation of entities via an imperfect (and ill-defined) process of "participation" in one or more elements of a transcendent world of (eternally perfect) "Forms".

Getting back to the point: Aristotle's wholeness is not equivalent to a simple summation, the arithmetical interpretation of a "mere heap", but requires a qualitatively different attribution of the "cause" of the manifest, overarching integrity of structure and/or functionality.

The conservative interpretation of "besides" seems to amount to "equal to the sum of the parts plus their mutual relationships". This formulation may seem inclusive, but in all but the simplest cases, relational combinatoric explosion (i.e., the "N-Squared" effect) renders a complete assessment of potential relationships impracticable.

Also, relationships' effects are themselves relative to the state of not only the system ("whole") involved, but that of the encompassing environment implied by the notion of any "whole" less inclusive than the entire (and ultimately intractable) universe. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the Hungarian polymath and founder of General Systems Theory, correctly modeled this morass as a system of differential equations generally unsolvable in principle, due to lack of both advanced enough analytic technique and efficient enough computational simulation.

At the opposite extreme, the progressive/visionary camp proposes the term "beyond" as synonymous with "besides", both as contrasted to a simple (Gestaltists would say "blind") sum. This open-ended interpretation resonates with the notion of *emergent properties* at the heart of many holistic doctrines, at the expense of seeming vague, or at least wanting of a more precise and operational definition.

SUGGESTION: should the "more" word be corrected to "other than" or "besides", and the related topics explored more fully on this page? E.g., Gerald M. Weinberg, in his "Introduction to General Systems Thinking", emphasizes that "emergence" is relative to an observer, and not an absolute designator. Just some thoughts.... Jjzanath 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have raised an excellent point. However, much depends on what you pre-define as 'parts' and what you conceive to be 'wholes,' so in a sense your question has no answer until those terms are defined and agreed upon. Broadly speaking the 'whole' includes all the parts and their relations, plus any relevant external factors. Do we know what Aristotle meant in the original quote? thanks Peter morrell 11:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ari was talking about how the function of the 'whole' depends on the relationships (e.g. position in space) held by the 'parts'. I think the example was of a house (maybe a ship?), but his point was that if you have all the parts, you don't necessarily have the whole. They need to be either self organized (e.g. chemical compounds, plant life, etc.) or constructed. Check out "Topics" VI. 13. for the quote and its context.

Holism in biology?

Just passing through, but what about holism in biology? i.e. taking the bigger picture which evolutionary biology and the key concepts in cellular biology are typically centred around. Same with other fields, at least in my experience as an undergrad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.236.149 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a central point in today's biology approach

I agree, this point is important, is part of new approaches like evo-devo, eco-evo-devo.

One can understand evolution, just if one considers the intricate network of relationships between organisms and the environment they live and transform.

The reductionist approach is needed because the lack of methods to study a very complex rank of relationships at a time. But integrative methods begin to bring light in the subject.

Systems biology is on this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.60.118 (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In ecology definition very poor

The definition in the "in ecology" section is very poor. Clicking on the systems ecology takes the reader to a page where Holism is used to define the term, which leaves the reader with no definition.

Paullb (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I began making a page on holisitc communities a few months ago... although it's very short and in need of some fixing (I'm horrible at making things flow). I don't want to link it to this page until a few other people have poked at it... anyone want to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.249.234 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind-- I'm going to link my page to here. I think that will facilitate more people helping to make this new page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.249.234 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Holism Vs Egoism

Isn't holism the opposite of egoism? If the egoist considers himself to be a closed system, wouldn't the holistic approach be to consider yourself as constantly interacting with the environment, and thus blending with the whole?--Zanthius (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Antireductionism

I started to try to improve Antireductionism, but I have realised it is really a kind of POV fork of the subject Holism. The content should be incorporated into this article, I can't see that it stands on its own. Fences and windows (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge for the reasons given. Verbal chat 17:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I wanted to support this proposal, because the article is no more then a stub, but I checked google and google books to be sure. I found Antireductionism to be a familar term present in hundreds of books. It seems like a rather notable term. There seems to be enough third party literature to make it a fine article. So untill soembody gets around who will make this happen, I would propose to keep this stub for what it is. It is my experience that a lot of terms that seems alike, also are alike, but describe the same subject from a different angle. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Marcel. I performed a similar set of searches which confirmed that both terms are separately notable. That said, we should beef up Antireductionism with such sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the two posts above. MaxPont (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please explain exactly how antireductionism is a subject that can be distinguished from holism. I'd like to see some sources, not just be told they exist. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess you have to be an expert to describe the difference here. However, there are not just some sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't support this merely for connotation reasons. In my experience, Antireductionism is used mostly as an analytical approach to study how information is broken down and analyzed against each other. The idea here is analysis of analysis, ensuring that separate pieces of information never leave the consideration of the main point. Holism is philosophical and primarily (again, in my experience) used to organize any category of knowledge. It's a small point, but I do believe the words are inherently different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.78.130.11 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needed

Hey budds, just noticed that there is no criticism section to this article, though of course throughout there are examples of philosophies which holism is not -i.e., atomism, reductionism, etc... I have a great book by Jerry Fodor and Ernest Lepore, "Holism: A Shopper's Guide" which offers some very good criticisms of holism. I definately need to give it a more careful read but think that a criticism section could help shape out this wiki entry so people can see just what is at stake. It is at least a very interesting debate in philosophy, though some might find it peripheral (sp.). Teetotaler 26 December, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Flammarion woodcut, picture of the Earth from the Moon

I am unable to understand what purpose this picture serves in this page. - Shooting Star 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too, I can't see the point. I believe it is perhaps the idea of holism is embraced by esoteric enthusiasts in general. This should be removed pronto. -- NIC1138 01:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the picture in the first place as an attempt to illustrate this subject, and trigger the imagination about this subject. The Flammarion woodcut is an illustration of the medieval whole and illustrate the scientific/mystical quests for knowledge beyond that. I thought this was somehow appropriate.

But now I changed the image. Again it's not an exact representation of holism, but it's definely an image of a whole. I hope this will do. - Mdd 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And the point of the picture of the Earth from the Moon is, what exactly?--621PWC (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the image of the Earth is a mere speculation. A source should be cited that directly justifies such image.--Sum (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the Earth image to the ecology section, but it should probably just removed. I've added an illustration of reductionism to the science section, explaining in the caption that holism is often explained in opposition to it. This may be also considered as the image for the whole article.--Sum (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Smuts material

I have removed all the new stuff that has been added about Jan Smuts and his white supremacist views simply because it is hardly relevant to this article and anyone can read all that stuff in the article about him. Am happy to discuss this matter here if required. It also looks like an attempt to smear this term by association to Smuts which is a bit unnecessary and out of place in a NPOV encyclopedia. Peter morrell 05:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The material on Smuts is obviously relevant for the history of the subject, since he is the inventor of Holism. Unfavorable views by other authors must not be censored. The NPOV policy explicitly sais that unfavorable views are legitimate and must be included. --Sum (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how racial segregation is connected to holism, or how holism supports the idea of racial segregation. I did notice the extensive quote by a medical practitioner and 'author' from some obscure village in Wales rubbishing holism, Jan Smuts and so on, without any substantive argument other than emotive words like "obvious", "banal" and so on. He also doesn't have all his ducks in a row about Jan Smuts's nickname: it was not "Janni the fox"; firstly, the diminutive of Jan is spelled "Jannie." More importantly, foxes are so rare in South Africa that the Afrikaans word for fox is quite esoteric ("vos") Therefore the nickname would more likely have been "Jannie the jackal", but that does not make sense either, since the symbolism of "jackal" denotes slyness and cowardice, and for all his other faults, nobody thought of Smuts in that way. In point of fact, his nickname was "slim (clever) Jannie" a rather two-edged compliment denoting that while his cleverness was admired, it was also thought that he could sometimes mislead people through the cleverness of his arguments. You also posted the same quotation, complete with typo's on the reference section of the Jan Smuts article. How is this quote helping us understand Jan Smuts, or holism? Or are you just trolling? pietopper (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This "Not surprisingly, Smuts's ecological holism was also a form of ecological racism, since it was a holism that contained natural-ecological divisions along racial lines" seems to suggest that his racism is relevant. [1] as does the debate with Hogben that is mentioned. More at [2], Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have actually read "The Politics of Holism, Ecology and Human Rights." In its entirety. You are taking one sentence out of context -- way out of context. Perhaps you would like to give me a concise definition of "ecological racism"? Just for my own education. pietopper (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works. If you haven't read it, read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. And please don't restore the Aristotle stuff without a reliable source, our own interpretations aren't relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Stuff on Melanesian "cosmomorphism" seems dubious, and lacks references

In the section, "History", regarding the New Caledonian Melanesians (Kanak?) it's claimed without citing a source that:

"For these people, an isolated individual is totally indeterminate, indistinct and featureless until he can find his position within the natural and social world in which he is inserted. The confines between the self and the world are annulled to the point that the material body itself is no guarantee of the sort of recognition of identity which is typical of our own culture."

I suspect this may be somewhat exaggerated... or an example of taking a claim that is made in the religious or literary sector of a culture at face value as a description of the culture. In any case no source is cited for this remarkable claim. Perhaps there is a reference by Maurice Leenhardt (who is mentioned)? This then be cited, and pehaps qualifiers like "according to Leonhardt" added to the claim. If not I suspect the material should be cut. On the other hand, examples of holism in the philosophy of non-Western cultures are certainly appropriate for the article. Any anthropologists out there who know more about this (Leenhardt/Melanesians/other examples), and have no axe to grind here? MorphismOfDoom (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to come from here and it is also found in other places on the web here for example and here, so it looks genuine. Peter morrell 04:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Be bold. Just edit it the way you think it should be written, obviously with citations and references. Go for it. pietopper (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Randall.h.parkersr: A few comments on your recent changes. While they're impressive, most of them will need to be significantly revised before they could be considered acceptable for Wikipedia.

• Wikipedia content should be primarily based on secondary sources. Smuts is a primary source in this context, and his work should primarily be described in the context of what others have said about him.
• Unless there is general academic agreement about particular aspects of holism (in which case authoritative secondary sources should be used), content cited directly to Smuts should be reported as his opinion, not factual information about holism.
• Long passages cited to primary sources (quoted or not) are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia. Among other things, it's difficult to determine if they are significant. Significance is determined by the highest-quality sources available. But if academic sources like this one only mention Smuts briefly as the person who coined the term, then our article should do the same.

I see you've been putting a lot of work into this, and your enthusiasm for the topic is appreciated. I've just restored the definition sentence, but I've left everything else for now so you can keep working on it. Please feel free to ask me questions if anything is unclear to you. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Thanks for your input. I will preface the definitions of Holism that I summarized at the top of the article stating that they are Smuts' opinion and that authoritative secondary sources have not yet been found; and that the elaborations for the mental, personal and social categories of wholes have not been produced and vetted. Until that is done, to your point, the definitions are only Smuts' opinion. I will also add a similar statement at the beginning of the section that follows: General Concept, Functions, and Categories. It in my intention to summarize the quoted material in this section, should I delete it for now, and work on it in my Sandbox? Should I submit my changes for review at the Sandbox level before I update the live page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.h.parkersr (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 January 2016

@Randall.h.parkersr: Thanks for talking! It's always great to have new editors willing to discuss. (As a quick note, you can automatically sign your comments on talk pages by concluding with four tildes: ~~~~) You can certainly choose to use your Sandbox, but personally I find it much more fulfilling to edit live articles. :-) We like to say that there's no deadline for fixing things, and we encourage editors to be bold. The worst that could happen is that someone changes or undoes your edits.

Also, why not make an article on his book? While you summarize your work here, some of it could be moved there. Primary-sourced material is more likely to be relevant in a more focused article, as opposed to an article on a broad philosophical concept like this one. I've just made a start (Holism and Evolution), to set up the formatting and make sure it passes the criteria for article creation. I just took some information from the Jan Smuts article and added a couple more facts from secondary sources, but of course there's a lot more that could be said! Sunrise (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: I'm enjoying the interaction more than you can imagine, my interests are highly esoteric, and being outside of academia, I have had next to no opportunity to share and get feedback on my research. I've made the changes you recommended, once I finish with the Holism page I'll get started filling in the article you started on Holism and Evolution. My understanding is that I can't introduce my work in progress, Holism and Mathematics on Wikipedia, but can I introduce it via a blog and then do a Wikipedia article on the blog? Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Randall.h.parkersr: Sounds good! Thanks again for your effort, and feel free to come to my talk page (linked in my signature) any time. Also, you can always get advice at the Teahouse or by placing {{help me}} on your personal talk page. For this article, I'd say the most important remaining work is to summarize the primary-sourced material and place it in the context of material from secondary sources.

With regards to your book, your best option is probably to publish it first, and then it can be cited directly as long as you used a reputable academic publisher. The primary guidance on sourcing is the page called WP:Verifiability - unfortunately, blogs usually aren't acceptable as sources, unless you become a widely recognized expert on the subject (as you might imagine, everybody writes personal opinions on their blogs and nobody can tell the difference between us!). The other caveat is that citing your own work is discouraged because of conflicts of interest. The best practice is to put {{request edit}} on the article's talk page followed by the request, although that system is often heavily backlogged, so {{help me}} might be a good alternative. Sunrise (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Hi .. I need some help/advice. I'd like to learn how to reference correctly; tried using the ibid template and got a message saying that it was discouraged, and that I should use named references. However these seem tobe a bit cumbersome, and don't show page numbers (or maybe I just don't understand how to use it?). Is it ok to use the manual ibid references with page numbers? Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Disregard previous, I did the help me as you suggested and got a very fast response. With a little practice, I should be able to figure it out :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.h.parkersr (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 January 2016‎ (UTC)

This article is in the process of an expansion and major restructuring. I expect that the changes will take several months to complete given the constraints imposed by my personal and professional commitments. A summary of the planned changes are as follows:

1. Provide Smuts' definitions of Holism when he coined the term in 1926 (completed)
2. Provide a brief synopsis of Holism and Evolution (completed)
3. Provide a summary of the general concepts, functions and categories of Holism as introduced by Smuts (In progress)
4. Provide a summary of the history of the philosophy of the Whole, prior to Smuts drawing primarily from Russell's A History of Western Philosophy and from a sources that are TBD for Eastern Philosophy (not started)
5. Provide a summary of significant works post Smuts primarily Semantic Holism (Quine, Block, Davidson, Dummett, Wittgenstein, Pagin, Putnam, Fodor and Lepore). Reach goals include: filling in the stub article on Holism and Evolution and providing citations and other updates to the Semantic Holism article (not started)
6. Check citations and perhaps extend the sections dealing with Science and Other Applications (not started)

In making these changes, my objectives are to clarify this important, but largely misunderstood topic while establishing a conceptually sound foundation for my work in progress Holism and Mathematics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.h.parkersr (talk • contribs) 02:18, 19 January 2016‎ (UTC)

@Randall.h.parkersr: Glad you were able to get your answer. This looks like a good plan, and I look forward to seeing your future efforts. There's no rush - just be aware that others may edit the article as well, since everything is always a work in progress! All versions of the article can be retrieved from the article history, so there's no worry about losing anything.

(FYI, a couple of minor technical notes. It looks like one of your edits accidentally deleted some comments from this page, so I restored them. Also, one of the quirks of the {{ping}} system is that it only works if you also used your signature as part of the same edit, so I didn't receive the last couple of notifications. I'm watching this page anyways, but if I don't answer you then I may not have noticed, or alternatively I may not have logged on to Wikipedia for a while.) Sunrise (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To further clarify my planned changes for this article; I believe that the scope should be focused on (1) Smuts’ opinions of Holism (since he coined the term and provided a compelling, if not bullet-proof, inductive argument that Holism is a viable monistic ontology, (2) philosophies that directly address the concept of the whole, as they may have shaped Smuts’ opinions and also have historical relevance and (3) direct applications and interpretations of Holism post-Smuts. It is my opinion that this article will become immense if it were to include everything that corroborates or is reminiscent of Holism … input from others is welcome; should this article cite examples that add weight to the inductive argument for Holism? I am ok with the suggestion from user:Teetotler that a criticism section is needed. That said, I do not think that the Fodor and Lepore Shopper’s Guide is a criticism; they acknowledge that the idea of Holism is important and that it may be true; but they are not completely sold on the arguments presented ..

Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just in response to the point on article size, the usual solution is to use summary style. That is, "central" articles like this one have an extremely broad overview of the subject, but every paragraph might summarize one or two key points of a concept that is discussed at length in its own article. That way, the reader who is only casually interested in holism can easily find what they're interested in, while someone interested in knowing more can go to the more detailed articles. For subjects as complicated as this one, there might be several levels of subarticles with increasing levels of detail. For example, if you look at Philosophy, the article points readers to the right places by using templates like {{main article|ARTICLENAME}} or {{see also|ARTICLENAME}} at the start of each section, and [[wikilinks]] for terms that are mentioned in passing so the entire definition doesn't have to be written out every time. Many editors actually find it easier to write the subarticles first and then write broader articles based on what they've already written in the subarticles. Sunrise (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have deviated from my planned outline for revising this article; I have reorganized all of the existing information into 3 sections. Philosophy and Science get their own main section in recognition of the first sentence of the Preface of Holism and Evolution: THIS work deals with some of the problems which fall within the debatable borderland between Science and Philosophy. Everything else has been restructured under the Other Applications section. The bulk of the information under Science, Philosophy, and Other Applications does not appear to directly relate to Holism; but being a neophyte to Wikipedia editing, I am uncomfortable with deleting it and I don't have the time at present to relocate the information using Summary Style. @Sunrise: I feel that an editorial note is warranted to this effect, your thoughts? Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Randall.h.parkersr: I think the new organization is an improvement! Editorial notes like you describe are generally discouraged, other than notes like "see also" that I mentioned in my last comment. This type of approach can still be done as part of the text, though - I would recommend looking for a source that delineates the boundaries and then use that source to clearly separate the different parts of the article from each other.

With regards to deletion, uncited material can usually be removed easily, and other editors are expected not to restore it unless they add sources as well. If the sources do use the term "holism," it becomes much more difficult to justify removal, unless e.g. they're clearly talking about a different word that happens to be spelled the same. One common reason that you could use is "insignificance" (the technical reference in policy is WP:WEIGHT) - the general idea in this context is that you're claiming that the information isn't important enough to be included in the article. Holism does sometimes get discussed in a scientific context, so the article should probably have at least some description of that, but one quick way to summarize is find a more specialized article (say, Holism in science) and copy the lead section for this article. Then you remove the detailed information from here and put it in the other article instead. I think both articles would probably benefit from the switch in this case. Sunrise (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Holism in science is also problematic, the entire article is a direct copy from a self-publishing site ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.h.parkersr (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 February 2016

@Randall.h.parkersr: Thanks for checking on that! :-) If someone used plagiarized content in articles, that needs to be corrected - which site are you referring to? There are quite a few sites that copy Wikipedia as well - the opening paragraph, for example, has been there since 2007 (that's a link to how the article looked at the time), so anything published afterwards was copied from Wikipedia instead of the other way around. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Here's where I found the information:http://gutenberg.us/articles/holism_in_science, you will find that it is Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press, apparently sourced to Marc Becoff who is referenced in the link you just provided. At the bottom of the Gutenberg article, there is a link to the source, which was Wikipedia, as you suspected. I have a few ideas on how to pull this all together with a new Holism in Science article tied to the Holism and the Holism and Evolution articles but that effort is months if not longer away. Randall.h.parkersr (talk)

There's no deadline - everyone contributes whatever they can. I may do some work on the article myself in the meantime, though you'd probably do a better job. :-) Sunrise (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Thanks for that compliment!! I'm not sure if that Holism in Science article is needed. Anything worth keeping can be moved under the renamed section of this article "Indications of Holism in Physical Science" If I do anything it will be after I flesh out the Holism and Evolution article. Aside from perhaps a few additions that turn up in my ongoing Googling (e.g. Drucker's Holism), my work on this article is completed. Note that rather than undertaking the immense effort to confirm that all of the existing information is explicitly related to Holism I changed the headings to "Indications of Holism" Thanks again for all of you guidance! Randall.h.parkersr (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Holism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Should Holon Philosophy page be merged with Holism? Brad Brichard37 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Just a small (?) correction/suggestion from a newbie: Aristotle's famous comment on the nature of the "whole" is well-nigh universally misquoted -- as in the "holism" page I got routed to from a search on "holistic" -- as being "more" than the sum of the parts. What he actually said, in one place alone (!) -- Metaphysica 10f-1045a -- I recently found from some online searches, is best translated as "besides" or "other than", as in this fairly authoritative translation: "In the "case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something *besides* the parts, there is a cause;..." (from my "Basic Works of Aristotle", McKeon, Random House 1941, pg. 818) This as prelude to his inquiry into the nature of such cause, a concise analysis and reframing of the underlying issues, and his generic process theory whereby some element of a pre-existent field of "potentiality" becomes "actualized" through an "agency" -- the famous "hylomorphic" theory of emergent unity, whereby "one element is *matter* and another is *form*" (line 23). This central doctrine seems to deal with issues raised by Parmenides ("there is no manifestation or change") and Plato's theory of manifestation of entities by an imperfect (and ill-defined) process of "participation" in one or more elements of the transcendent world of (eternally perfect) "Forms". But I digress. Getting back to the point, Aristotle's wholeness is not equivalent to a simple summation, the arithmetical interpretation of a "mere heap", but requires a qualitatively different attribution of the "cause" of the manifest, overarching integrity of structure and/or functionality. The conservative interpretation of "besides" seems to amount to "equal to the sum of the parts plus their mutual relationships". This formulation may seem inclusive, but in all but the simplest cases, relational combinatoric explosion (i.e., the "N-Squared" effect) renders the complete specification/determination of the set of potential relationships impracticable. At the opposite extreme, "beyond" is also proposed as functionally synonymous with "besides" in the sense of "other than", relative to a simple (a Gestaltist would say "blind") sum. This resonates with the notion of emergent properties, at the heart of many holistic doctrines, at the expense of seeming vague, or at least wanting of a more precise and formal definition. SUGGESTION: should the "more" word be corrected to "other", and the related topics explored more fully on this page? E.g., Gerald M. Weinberg, in his "Introduction to General Systems Thinking", emphasizes that "emergence" is relative to an observer, and not an absolute designator. Just some thoughts.... Jjzanath 06:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 18:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

British Empire

From All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace:

Arthur Tansley who had invented the term ecosystem, had once accused Field Marshal Jan Smuts of the "abuse of vegetational concepts". Smuts had invented a philosophy called holism, where everyone had a 'rightful place', which was to be managed by the white race. The 70s protestors claimed that the same conceptual abuse of the supposed natural order was occurring, that it was really being used for political control.

I don't see the political results of holism mentioned in the article. --Error (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160520122904/http://www.mediafire.com/?rxmn2t1votf to http://www.mediafire.com/?rxmn2t1votf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050719000606/http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/pma/project/goa/hms-int/history.html to http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/pma/project/goa/hms-int/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to figure out what happened to this page? There is an incorrect reference to Adler in the opening paragraph and a lot of content seems to have been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.h.parkersr (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Overhaul Project

Greetings. I guess it raises an editorial flag for me that a start-class article containing all of 5 paragraphs involves almost 30 distinct talk topics. This is a Vital Article for the Philosophy wikiproject and, as such, I'm performing an overhaul in the following ways, top to bottom: 1. Readability (Smutz talked at a high level, that doesn't mean we should too). 2. Citations (citations across the board seemed weak in credibility and focus. Some citations did not clearly justify the cited claim (raising concerns over being challengeable). The citations justifying the original definition of holism were,,,not very credible, vague, and nearly unrelated to the interdisciplinary nature of the subject; plus in another place, someone literally cited a dictionary entry which I do not believe appropriately satisfies our encyclopedic citation standards, especially those worthy of a vital philosophical article (it was OED but still, there's scholars we should be referencing here and we can do better). 3. Pictures and relevant captions--besides being a necessary condition for a Good/Featured Article, pictures help a reader follow longer articles visually, making it easy to recall where they might have left off. Plus they're fun! 4. Expansion of material. There's a lot to be said for physics and linguistics, just to name two. 5. Reorganization. Streamlining the structure a bit by separating science from non-science contexts and specifying the non-science disciplines involved even though they are not the "big players" when it comes to the philosophical concept of holism.

As far as addressing concerns in the talk topics.... Some of these entries are old and TL;DR (aren't I one to speak?). I skimmed many, some of the concerns were addressed, others concern sections that no longer exist. RE: Smuts Smuts coined the term but once science got its hands on the word, it took it and ran. Anyone seriously researching this concept (anything more than 2+ hrs of research) will quickly realize this word is simply no longer as controversial as it has been in the context of either Jan Smutz or Alternative medicine. It is a topic of legitimate philosophical and scientific inquiry based on my (cited) research presented throughout the revisions I am going to upload. Holism as an idea that simply has moved on from Smutz. This point alone seems to cover a lot of ground when it comes to responding to the talk topics on this page.

In any case, I'm still preparing my work in a draft page, check it out if I have not applied my overhaul changes yet: User:Non-pegasus/sandbox/Holism draft.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you🦄Non-pegasus (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to review this. Seems interesting. Likely timeline: two weeks. Cessaune [talk] 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Sounds good, let me know if you have any questions.Non-pegasus (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's the first half of the review (I'll start from the back):

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

• It's a philosophical article, so the images that are currently in the article are fine as is.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Y.

• Not much to say here. No edit warring going on.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

• Seems neutral. I read through some stuff online, and it seems to give due weight to opinions fairly.

This was the easy part. I'll finish the rest later. Cessaune [talk] 04:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Non-pegasus:

Broad in its coverage: ?

• After a check online, it seems to touch on all the important points of the concept. However, it does not touch significantly on criticisms of holism, especially in the context of reductionism. It also needs to go more into depth when it comes to some of the claims it makes (Biological scientists, however, did offer favorable assessments shortly after its first print because? There must've been a reason.)

Verifiable with no original research: ?

• A bunch of scholarly articles that, at a glance, are definitely good. I did some digging and it seems that the sources are generally good. The problem here is that certain sections lack inline citations (lifestyle applications for example) and certain assertions are unsourced (The advent of holism in the 20th century coincided with the gradual development of quantum mechanics—is this implying causation? Or is it just correlation?). Every paragraph has to have at least one inline citation, two to be safe.
• There is also a general lack of links. Given the technicality of the subject, I would expect there to be more links to aid the reader in understanding things. Based on the lack of links, certain sections and sentences look almost OR-ish, and massive swaths of article text are only supported by a single source.

Well-written: N

• This article is approaching a level of technicality that makes it only minorly understandable to a broad audience. Coupled with the issues below, this issue gets blown out of proportion.
• The prose is off, and grammar mistakes permeate the article. Three examples:
  1. First, holism is the idea of an empirical whole system with examples including atomic or material systems, cells, and an individual's personality. This reads weirdly. In its contextual bubble, it kind of makes sense, but outside that context, it fails to remain understandable.
  2. The metaphysical claim does not assert that physical systems involve abstract properties beyond the composition of its physical parts, but that there are concrete properties aside from those of its basic physical parts. For instance, theoretical physicist David Bohm (1917-1992) supports this view head-on. For instance? This is incorrect grammar. For instance implies that an example of the previous claim is coming next.
  3. Bohm believed that a complete description of the universe would have to go beyond a simple list of all its particles and their positions, there would also have to be a physical quantum field associated with the properties of those particles guiding their trajectories. The comma should be a semicolon, colon, or m-dash.
• Each section seems to be walled off into its own little bubble. It reads as if it's talking abot multiple, somewhat-related ideas. Consequently, it simply isn't interesting to read.

Based on all this, I'm going to put this nomination on hold. Please ping me when you think you have adequately addressed the issues I have laid out above. Cessaune [talk] 05:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cessaune,

Thank you for your review, I appreciate the honesty and, as far as I can tell, the accuracy of your feedback. Because of other commitments, I will not be available to address your points concerning breadth, verifiability/OR, and writing to the level of adequacy I assume you're looking for (or the level of adequacy I want out of myself). I wish I had more time to improve its quality within 7 days. I've made a few edits already and will continue making edits when I am able but I understand if you need to fail the review after my 7 day period. I appreciate your careful review over the past 2 weeks and I will keep the feedback in mind as I continue other projects on Wikipedia. It was my first good article nomination so I really mean it that I appreciate your feedback :). Thanks! 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Non-pegasus Outsider chiming in: Notwithstanding that the nomination failed, I congratulate you for your bravery in nominating an article and the work you've put into it! I've done one, and I've definitely been scared off the process for a couple months haha - good luck with your future wiki-endeavours :) ~ Frzzl talk · contribs 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I second this. The amount of effort you've put in (>90% of the article) is staggering, and is also the kind of thing that goes unnoticed. I hope that, one day, this page will be lucky enough to ggrace the Main Page. Happy editing! Cessaune [talk] 03:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! It was very rewarding to develop the article. While I'm developing another article that is closer to my interests and which is taking up a lot more of my wiki-focus, I hope to return to this one and align it closer with our criteria. I appreciate your kind words! 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Article seems to be missing quite a bit

I noticed there was a good article review that's currently on hold so I thought I should chime in - in it's current state, this article appears to be missing any mention of several important topics in holism, the SEP articles cited here alone [3] [4] [5] mention several types of holism that go entirely undiscussed or only barely mentioned in this article. And there's no mention of confirmation holism, which even has its own article here and also one at SEP.

I'm not sure the claim that Jan Smuts came up with holism is true, either - like the SEP link, most sources I've found seem to credit Pierre Duhem with the development of holism, and he died 12 years before Smuts' book was published, so I think we can rule out Smuts' priority on this. At any rate, not mentioning Duhem at all seems like an omission. - car chasm (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)