(September 26, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: ...a reductionist isn't necessarily proposing a specific explanation of how sign systems work by suggesting that they have their basis in the physical.
Doing so is a serious omission at best and baseless assertion at worst.
(September 26, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I didn't mean that the reductionist is arguing that signs do not reduce to the physical. Only that you don't have to possess a full fledged theory of the subject to be a reductionist.
Or rather they don't have any principle by which they can reincorporate phenomena that already dismissed as illusions. Then they confidently re-issue the promissory note that someday-maybe a theory will be forthcoming.
