The reductionism selects, perhaps on grounds of intuition, basic categories of what is to count as genouinly real and then reduce all other entities, being motion, particles to these basic cetegories or attempts to eliminate them
Positivist tried to reduce everything to experience, more generally or to what could be experience.
No other epistemological methods such as induction from physical events or deduction from first principles are endorsed. The claim. Of scientific value is narrowly on taxonomic aptness and predictability on claims of sharef traits by the category once classified by empirical means and not from principles.
Two more extreme examples of such theories are Kinematics and standard model.
In principle chemistry reduces to physics, but the science of chemistry doesn't proceed on that basis because it would be impracticable. Still, it's nice to know that there is no ultimate conflict between chemistry and physics as regards realism; they are in the same book, if not on the same page. One's methodologies (working epistemologies, research methods) will reflect the level of the phenomena one is investigating. While there may be some areas of chemistry where some details of reduction to physics might be fruitful, that's not likely to happen with sciences such as meteorology or trichology.
Theories that rely heavily or exclusively on reductive realism may face some challenges in terms of epistemological validity. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, belief, and justification.
Reductive realism is a philosophical position that holds that the properties of a system can be explained in terms of the properties of its parts. It posits that the properties of a complex system can be reduced to the properties of its simpler components.
Theories that rely on reductive realism may suffer from some limitations in terms of their ability to account for the complex relationships and interactions between the parts of a system. This can make it difficult for these theories to fully capture the complexity of the phenomena they are trying to explain.
Additionally, such theories may face difficulties in accounting for emergent properties that arise from the interactions between the parts of a system, but are not reducible to them. This can lead to a lack of explanatory power for certain phenomena, and make it difficult to test and verify the theories.
Furthermore, some argue that reductive realism can be problematic from an ontological perspective, as it posits that the properties of the whole are fully determined by the properties of the parts, which may not be the case in reality.
It's important to note that theories relying on reductive realism can still be useful, but they should be used with caution and along with other theories that can account for the complexity of the phenomena and the interactions between different levels of organization.
