Question

Kemeny and Oppenheim’s “indirect” view of this process was one of many classified by Kenneth Schaffner. Explanation and this process conflict with empiricism according to a paper that coined the term “incommensurable” by Paul Feyerabend. Ernest Nagel’s model of this process uses “bridge laws” (-5[1])to link scientific theories. An “ism” named for this process is divided into “good” and “greedy” versions in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and follows the analytic-synthetic distinction as the second (-5[1])of Quine’s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” This word denotes the process of explaining a complex phenomenon via a more fundamental one, which is often used in a negative sense to imply oversimplification. For 10 points, a logical fallacy is named for doing what process “to absurdity,” (-5[1])or ad (10[1])absurdum? (10[1])■END■ (10[1])

ANSWER: reduction [or word forms such as reducing or reductive; accept scientific reduction; accept greedy reductionism; accept reductio ad absurdum] (Feyerabend’s paper is “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.”)
<TM, Philosophy>
= Average correct buzz position

Back to tossups

Buzzes

PlayerTeamOpponentBuzz PositionValue
Jon SuhHarvard ABrandeis B43-5
Yrwin BatanMIT ABrown A72-5
Jerry ZhangHarvard BBrandeis A118-5
Michael SunBrandeis BHarvard A12010
Philip YaoBrown AMIT A12110
Jonathan SchnipperBrandeis AHarvard B12210

Summary

Great Lakes2025-02-01Y683%0%50%116.00
Lower Mid-Atlantic2025-02-01Y1100%0%0%104.00
Midwest2025-02-01Y580%0%80%118.25
Northeast2025-02-01Y3100%0%100%121.00