Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:06:19.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Up and down scalar levels: reductionism or infinite fractal complexity in biology?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Ulrich Lüttge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systems studied by science are generally characterized by a hierarchy of levels with different dimensions. Continuous moving up and down these scalar levels is needed for understanding. In biology, the science of the very complex, application of simple general rules is rarely—if ever—sufficient. Thus, conceptual reductionism is not possible As in fractals, where scaling does not affect the structures emerging, similar extraordinary complexity appears on each scalar level. Thus, scaling down is not reductionism. The need for continuous scaling up and scaling down not only requires integration of specialists but also reincarnation of generalists.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 329 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Bell, R. (1995) Les comptes cruels de la station spatiale. La Recherche, 279, 890–898.Google Scholar
2.Haber, W. (1992) Ouml;kologie—die neue Sicht? In Präve, P. (Ed), Jahrhundertwissenschaft Biologie?! VCH Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., Weinheim, 91–96.Google Scholar
3. (1995) Plant, Cell and Environment, ‘Special Issue: Scaling up’, 18, 1079–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Curien, H. (1996) Science and parascience. A new kind of competition. European Review, 4, 45–48.Google Scholar
5.Hawkins, I. M. and Allen, R. (1991) The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
6.Alfvén, H. (1973) Mensch und Universum, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt M.Google Scholar
7.Vollmer, G. (1992) Die Wissenschaft vom Leben. Das Bild der Biologie in der Ouml;ffentlichkeit. In Präve, P. (Ed), Jahrhundertwissenschaft Biologie?! VCH-Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., Weinheim, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
8.Schuster, H. G. (1995) Deterministic Chaos, VCH-Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., Weinheim.Google Scholar
9.Lloyd, A. L. and Lloyd, D. (1995) Chaos. Its significance and detection in biology. Biological Rhythm Research, 26, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Markl, H. (1995) Naturforschung für eine lebenswerte Zukunft. In Markl, H., Geiler, G., Grossmann, S., Oesterhelt, D., Schmidbaur, H., Quadbeck-Seeger, H.-J. and Truscheit, E. (Eds), Wissenschaft in der globalen Herausforderung, Verh. Ges. Deutsch. Naturf. Ärzte, 118. Vers. Hamburg 1994, Wiss. Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., Stuttgart, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar