Learning+SAQ2+(Reductionism)

=__Explain why a reductionist approach adopted by many learning theorists is controversial.__ [8 marks] = = = = =  Reductionism involves explaining a phenomenon by breaking it down into its constituent parts and analysing it. In terms of the learning perspective, it claims that behaviour is explained by the simplest underlying principles possible, which, in this case, is learning, conditioning and environmental factors.

Atinkson and Shiffrin’s (1968) multi-store model of memory was a reductionist and linear account of how memory works. This could be classified as “machine reductionism”, as the brain is likened to a computer. Humanistic psychologists believe that the individual reacts as an organized whole rather than a set of stimulus-response links. This argument is governed under the concept of Holism. This approach focuses on systems as a whole rather than focusing on the constituent parts and suggests that we cannot predict how the whole system will behave from a knowledge of its components. Reductionist explanations can therefore play only a limited role in understanding behaviour. However, reducing behaviour to a form that can be studied is productive. In reducing a concept to its component parts and simplest terms many aspects of it are disregarded. Reductionism does not give a full explanation for an otherwise complicated subject such as evolution or memory. Evolutionary psychologists explain behaviour in terms of natural selection and sexual selection. Such explanations are reductionist because they suggest that all behaviour can be reduced to genetic influences and the principle of adaptive ness. In terms of evolution the reductionist view ignores environmental factors and the huge part they play in a species evolution. By reducing it to its component parts the complicated matter of evolution can never fully be explained, thus leading to a simple but incomplete explanation.

Many argue that reductionist explanations often ignore many important interactions and that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, theories that take into account higher level explanations may be less detailed and more useful than lower level ones. Rose (1976) argues that different levels of discourse cannot be substituted for each other. This raises the problem of the relationship between the mind and the brain, the biological and chemical interactions and the emotional outcome and cause of the behaviour, therefore questioning the validity of reductionism. Despite these negatives, the idea of the reductionist explanation adopts a very scientific and analytical approach, which has worked very well within the natural sciences. Furthermore, by breaking down behaviour into stimulus-response units, these constituent parts are often more easily tested and validated.

A reductionist approach adopted by many learning theorists is controversial because it assumes that complex behaviour was the sum of all past stimulus-response learning units and overlooks the influence of biological and cognitive factors.