I recently posted a question on Facebook with the aim of deducing what distinguishes biology from chemistry with regards to reductionism, more specifically whether biology is just an abstracted form of chemistry or whether biology has within it a kernel which is irreducible to chemical terms. There seem to be two arguments possible here, one rejecting reductionism on complexity grounds and the other rejecting reductionism outright. I shall explore both here.
The first argument against reductionism in this sense is the argument against complexity i.e. that reducing all biology to chemistry would overburden any analysis and make it unworkable. In this argument biology is a subset of chemistry (itself a subset of the master-science physics) which is used to describe macroscopic life forms where chemistry or physics would prove too unwieldy to describe them. In this argument then there is but one scientific truth but as knowing subjects we cannot contemplate the complexity of it so we have to break down science into niches which describe what we are looking at (animals, chemicals, etc.) with the belief that physics underpins it all. It should be noted here that mathematics is applied logic and allows us to describe and model reality but it is not reality itself: this reductionism ends at physics.
The second view is that each layer of description resists reduction as it contains within it something that is missing from the descriptive level below. In this argument chemistry cannot be used to fully describe biology as chemistry misses something out from biology. It is my suggestion that entropy may be this biological kernel that cannot be reduced. Physics and chemistry are ruled by entropy: in a closed system we only see growing disorder and a tendency towards equilibrium (thermal death). Biology however studies biological systems which, whilst not closed, actively reduce entropy by creating highly ordered and complex chemical arrangements. The energy released increases the entropy of the (closed system) universe so fundamental principles are not violated. Whilst chemical processes such as crystal formation also locally reduce entropy, they lack the homeostatic properties that biological systems do: biological systems actively monitor their entropy and take measures to reduce it (or keep it in check). The most basic example of this I can think of is of mammals maintaining a constant body temperature to ensure their continued operations. A crystal can’t act to maintain itself if environmental conditions change, biological systems certainly try. The negative entropy antics of biological systems combined with their homeostatic ways seems to resist a purely chemical explanation.
If we take this to be true, it leads us to some interesting conclusions. For a start it rejects reductionism outright as unable to reduce phenomena without losing some of the understanding we have about them. If we assume this, it leads us to a question of knowledge. In the first argument we have an abstract systems theory layering of science where biology was a subset of chemistry. In the second we have biology and chemistry as two distinct scientific systems which are irreducible to one another. This would render biology as a unique discipline whilst also killing off reductionist arguments. I may be wide of the mark and missing something here, so I welcome your comments!
ssptmusing 