Multiple Explanations at Different Levels of Emergence Are Not Inconsistent

A reductionist argument against an explanation might be that it is incorrect because there are multiple explanations of the same phenomena. If good explanations are hard to vary, how could there be multiple explanations? This argument doesn’t take into account that multiple explanations can exist at different levels of emergence and this is not altogether inconsistent.

See also:

  • Wood Wide Web

    A theory of how plants cooperate comes from research of how fungus connects tree roots together into common mycorrhizal networks (CMN). Scientists have found evidence that important nutrients are shared over CMN and can connect multiple species of plants together.

  • Reductionists View High-Level Behavior as Consisting of Lower-Level Behavior Only

    The reductionist view of science is that all high-level behavior consists of the underlying lower-level behavior and should be analyzed into components to fully understand. However, good explanations can be self-contained and sufficient without needing an explanation of every low-level detail. For example, you can have a theory of how water boils that doesn’t need to predict movement of individual atoms.