Therein lies the limits of ontological reductionism. I didn’t posit any theory that needs defending, but if I did I would look to systems biology as a framework. It attempts to integrate reductionism (per your insistence on statistically meaningful tests) with emergence, the scientific approach to observing behaviors in chaotic systems that can be manifest in isolation.
The link below is truly an interesting read that explores the evolution of scientific approaches to study of biological phenomena. It attempts to integrate biology, physics, medicine, and computer science to show how nonlineal systems like you and me can be studied. We got to the bottom of the genome and found that things like gene expression (what really matters IRL) can’t be explained at the atomic level, but can with systems.
I love it also because it contains a coy attempt at biology supervining physics, stating that all understanding of physics is limited by human intellect and the machines we built out of that intellect to support our understanding. Like somebody read https://xkcd.com/435/ and had to win. #probablynotwrongthough
The link below is truly an interesting read that explores the evolution of scientific approaches to study of biological phenomena. It attempts to integrate biology, physics, medicine, and computer science to show how nonlineal systems like you and me can be studied. We got to the bottom of the genome and found that things like gene expression (what really matters IRL) can’t be explained at the atomic level, but can with systems.
I love it also because it contains a coy attempt at biology supervining physics, stating that all understanding of physics is limited by human intellect and the machines we built out of that intellect to support our understanding. Like somebody read https://xkcd.com/435/ and had to win. #probablynotwrongthough
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X1...