Difference between revisions of "1734: Reductionism"
(→Explanation: better Title text explanation and more) |
(→Explanation: Removing references that was not directly linked with reductionism in the joke) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
In the title text, two people are speking. The first speaker have noticed that " physics people can be a little on the reductionist side". (Randall would consider himself a physicist). The physicist says that it is a ridiculous notion. He challenges the other to "Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said." But by claiming he is not a reductionist by focusing on the individual words, like one can avoid ever saing a single reductionist word, the physicist overlooks the fact that reductionism is an emergent property of sentences. By focusing on individual words in this way the speaker proves them-self a reductionist, in the very act of trying to refute this accusation. | In the title text, two people are speking. The first speaker have noticed that " physics people can be a little on the reductionist side". (Randall would consider himself a physicist). The physicist says that it is a ridiculous notion. He challenges the other to "Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said." But by claiming he is not a reductionist by focusing on the individual words, like one can avoid ever saing a single reductionist word, the physicist overlooks the fact that reductionism is an emergent property of sentences. By focusing on individual words in this way the speaker proves them-self a reductionist, in the very act of trying to refute this accusation. | ||
| − | Reductionism has previously appeared | + | Reductionism has previously appeared [[1416:_Pixels#Holism.2C_Reductionism.2C_Mu||deep down]] in [[1416: Pixels]]. |
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Revision as of 10:06, 17 September 2016
| Reductionism |
 Title text: "I've noticed you physics people can be a little on the reductionist side." "That's ridiculous. Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said." |
Explanation
|
This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: This is a reductionist's explanation If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks. |
In this comic the meta joke is that Randall is attempting to define the word 'Reductionism', but is taking the reductionist approach to its extreme. He breaks the worf "Reductionism" into individual letters explaining the origin of each individual letter, acting as if the word was nothing more than the "sum" of all its letters. In doing so he entirely fails to explain the actual meaning of the word.
As it happens, every letter of the Latin alphabet (the writing system used by English and many other languages) is ultimately derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics, not just "R".
In the title text, two people are speking. The first speaker have noticed that " physics people can be a little on the reductionist side". (Randall would consider himself a physicist). The physicist says that it is a ridiculous notion. He challenges the other to "Name ONE reductionist word I've ever said." But by claiming he is not a reductionist by focusing on the individual words, like one can avoid ever saing a single reductionist word, the physicist overlooks the fact that reductionism is an emergent property of sentences. By focusing on individual words in this way the speaker proves them-self a reductionist, in the very act of trying to refute this accusation.
Reductionism has previously appeared |deep down in 1416: Pixels.
Transcript
- REDUCTIONISM•n.1."R" is a letter with
- origins in the Egyptian hieroglyphics. "E"
- stands for a vowel sound normally
- represented by "I" until the 1500's. "D" is
- [falls off bottom of page]
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ 
refresh comments!Discussion
Just like defining recursion by: "recursion n: see recursion" :-) --JakubNarebski (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
"D" is a development from an Egyptian hieroglyph symbolizing a door. "U" is Capncanuck (talk)
- "U" is what?! 108.162.212.92 03:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- "U" is a dummy variable; "i" is an imaginary number. 108.162.218.215 11:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I feel like part of the meta-joke is the fact that the box cuts off the definition, literally reducing it. 162.158.69.90 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, reductionism reducted, reductionised, and reduced... 108.162.249.156 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Would the letter 'I' in reductIonIsm be described twice? - Sebastian --162.158.85.213 10:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, this is probably the first time I've been on here and the Wednesday comic is up on Thursday, but the Friday comic is still on schedule. Weird. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- It was also the first time Randall delayed a comic to keep another comic on the front page. So since it was a planned delay of the previous comic this one was not supposed to be delayed. That would have been weird ;-) --Kynde (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
What amazed me in all this is that, every themes or words found on xkcd I've noticed that Reductionism adds to 174 in reverse ordinal and 143 in Jewish ordinal gematria little resemblance to 1743 -- Know More
