"Part of our western outlook stems from the scientific attitude and its method of isolating the parts of a phenomenon in order to analyze them"
About this Quote
There’s a quiet indictment embedded in Erickson’s phrasing: the “western outlook” isn’t neutral, it’s a habit of mind shaped by a particular toolset. His target is the scientific method’s genius and its blind spot at once. Isolating parts is how you make knowledge portable, testable, and lucrative. It’s also how you risk turning lived reality into a disassembled kit, mistaking the diagram for the organism.
Coming from an architect, this lands as more than armchair philosophy. Architecture is where analysis meets consequence: you can’t “control for variables” when a building sits in weather, politics, budgets, migration, memory. Erickson is pointing to a cultural default that prizes the legible component - the unit, the metric, the isolated function - and then wonders why cities feel like spreadsheets you can walk through. The subtext reads as a critique of modernist overconfidence: the belief that if you understand the parts, the whole will behave.
Context matters. Erickson’s career unfolded through the high modern period and its backlash, when glass-and-concrete rationalism met rising awareness of ecology, Indigenous place-knowledge, and the messy social life of streets. His line isn’t anti-science; it’s anti-reductionism masquerading as wisdom. The intent is to widen the frame: to argue that Western thinking, trained to slice phenomena into analyzable pieces, struggles with systems, interdependence, and atmosphere - precisely the stuff architects traffic in but can’t easily quantify.
The sentence works because it sounds almost polite while smuggling in a provocation: what if our most celebrated way of knowing is also a way of not seeing?
Coming from an architect, this lands as more than armchair philosophy. Architecture is where analysis meets consequence: you can’t “control for variables” when a building sits in weather, politics, budgets, migration, memory. Erickson is pointing to a cultural default that prizes the legible component - the unit, the metric, the isolated function - and then wonders why cities feel like spreadsheets you can walk through. The subtext reads as a critique of modernist overconfidence: the belief that if you understand the parts, the whole will behave.
Context matters. Erickson’s career unfolded through the high modern period and its backlash, when glass-and-concrete rationalism met rising awareness of ecology, Indigenous place-knowledge, and the messy social life of streets. His line isn’t anti-science; it’s anti-reductionism masquerading as wisdom. The intent is to widen the frame: to argue that Western thinking, trained to slice phenomena into analyzable pieces, struggles with systems, interdependence, and atmosphere - precisely the stuff architects traffic in but can’t easily quantify.
The sentence works because it sounds almost polite while smuggling in a provocation: what if our most celebrated way of knowing is also a way of not seeing?
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Arthur
Add to List




