How would you falsify number 1?
Well, I am an anti reductionist at heart but I understand the importants of knowing the parts of the whole. Reductionism doesnt fully explain reality but it is very informative.
There are a few things that are problamatic about reductionism.
First: the infinite regression problem.
Second: the ontological hijacking of properties.
Third: reductionism doesnt actually explain.
The first and third are realized when you look at how we explain phenomena all together. The explanations go through different "levels" of scientific understanding. As Chalmers puts it, "If all goes well, biological phenomena may be explainable in terms of cellular phenomena, which are explainable in terms of biochemical phenomena, which are explainable in terms of chemical phenomena, which are explainable in terms of physical phenomena." Do you see a pattern?
Each "level" is supposed to explain its above phenomena, but, as you can see, there is a level for each level. So a full explanation is never given but instead goes through the different levels until...? And Im sure the infinite regression is self explanatory.
One can easily realize how unsatisfying reductionism is when you look at increasing fields of science such as emergence and complexity. Also, simple questions like, Does C-fibers fully explain pain? Does the excitation of molecules fully explain heat?
whose answers are a nonreduction style. You cant find feelings, sensations, qualia, etc. under a microscope. There is a sensation phenomenon of feeling pain that cannot be expained to someone who hasnt experienced it. No matter how much they look at C-fibers. I would go on but Im late for lunch, see ya.