Life Against Smallism

That the order of explanation tracks the relative scale of objects involved and that the smaller objects must explain the larger is a common, often unchallenged assumption in the metaphysics of science. Following the work of Robert Wilson, Sam Coleman, and Graham Harman, we may call this assumption “smallism.” I will first diagnose smallism as an unargued for presupposition held by most major positions in the debate between reductionists and emergentists. I will then argue that there is good reason to reject smallism, using assembly theory as evidence. Assembly theory provides a framework for understanding cases where larger scale objects explain smaller scale ones as well as reasons to believe such cases take place in the realm of the natural sciences. If this is so, then smallism is false.