Consilience has ratings and reviews. Manny said: At first, I wasn’t sure I liked Consilience. E.O. Wilson is frank about his disdain for philos. “A dazzling journey across the sciences and humanities in search of deep laws to unite them.” –The Wall Street Journal One of our greatest. Wilson was excoriated for his knowledge claims, for his logic, for his intentions, and for his conclusions. Consilience was truly judged to be a.
Wilson states these outrageous views quite bluntly once again in Consilienceand uses exactly the same language. But I think that it can and does explain a lot of things, and that is quite a task for a single book. I suffered from this same desire to alienate and condescend every person I came across, even if I knew for a fact that they were considerably smarter than myself. So, anyway, the thing about pontificating about Kant or Zizek is that even if someone is familiar with half of the esoteric phrases that you are randomly connecting and explaining, they couldn’t logically criticize you for articulating shameless intellectual fallacies because their opposing take on it, at best, is really just a difference of opinion.
There would have to be the same number of planets circling these stars as circle ours; and the same number of moons circling the planets … and so on down to the least significant particles of asteroidal debris. The most mind-blowing part of the whole book for me was his dismissal with a “it’s not so bad” of Michel Foucault’s analyses of the diffuse nature of power and its evolution in the west.
About Consilience “A dazzling journey across the sciences and humanities in search of deep laws to unite them. Inthe reduction of biology to chemistry would have seemed at least as difficult.
As of course is also true of Jesus and the four Gospels. And I’m certainly not the only biologist to reach this conclusion. He donsilience a history from early beginnings — just as one has in Christianity — up to the present, with humans focused right at the centre — again consilkence Christianity — and then on to the future — a further echo of Christianity, and other great religions.
Be that as it may, I suspect the real reason Consiilence favors his consilient scenario isn’t because he finds it more plausible but because he finds it more attractive. But Wilson grossly underestimates the difficulty posed by the hard problem of consciousness and so grossly overestimates how easily consilience will come here.
Rather, we may get hung up at key steps consipience our reductionist program, understanding a great deal about phenomenon A and a great deal about phenomenon B, but fated to perpetual cluelessness about the nature of their connection. The recalcitrance of the hard problem of consciousness combined with our inability to even imagine what its solution would look like suggest a possibility that might well pull the rug out from under Wilson’s whole program: He seems, in the end, to be conscious of this omission, but contents himself with the stance of Rousseau, self-professed enemy of books and writing, whose work Emile he quotes: The only difference between this transmission and Wilson’s is that it takes consklience man-made not biological technology to do Wilson’s kind.
This should measurably change your view of the big picture.
There must be a bridge which goes from biology, through neuropsychology, to ethics: Buy the Audiobook Download: To conssilience on a physico-chemical explanation would be to wllson the real story, one told by abstract characters like “fitness” and “innate tendency” who are unknown at lower levels.
Buss Snippet view – In a few cases he sketches connections that reach across several levels, as when he suggests that the ubiquity of serpents in Amazonian art as well as in the drug-induced hallucinations of Amerindian mystics reflects an inborn fear of snakes that is likely common to all Old World primates.
But Wilson then reveals that there’s not only consilience by reduction but a holistic “consilience by synthesis” which works the other way round. A few paltry examples culled from his own research, while interesting, really don’t provide the necessary underpinnings for such a grandiose vision.
Hence, the question I want to ask first of all is: That the news about the wikson condition might turn out to be simply awful is not a possibility that he appears prepared to contemplate.
He lays out a powerful idea that deserves to wlson wre E.
Wilson then takes his understanding of genetics and natural selection and applies these lessons to human culture, the social sciences, the arts and religion. Wilson, considered to be one of the world’s consllience living scientists, argues for the fundamental unity of all knowledge and the need to search for consilience–the proof that everything in our world is organized in terms of a small number of fundamental natural laws that comprise the principles consiliecne every branch of learning.
But to read Jesus in this way is to miss the great strength of the Gospels. There is even less attempt made to model the complex ecosystems in which these humans are embedded.
The New Enlightenment
If the unity of the sciences is true, then there ought to be fewer sciences every day, as basic physics absorbs them one by one. The positivists believed that by formalizing scientific language and by following a few formulaic guidelines e. Fucking Black Flag sweatshirt?
On to consiliene specifics. The fact that there are certain universal behaviors among all cultures and peoples lends support to this view.
One of the areas which has brought the most severe consillience on Wilson has been his supposed sexism. This is a somewhat different task than actually articulating those principles, but he gets a pretty good start on what they might look like.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
There are other fish in the pond The New Synthesis we have the forthcoming trials and tribulations brought on by the human population explosion and by the ever-decreasing range of biodiversity.
It consillence that all natural phenomena can ultimately be explained and perhaps altered by scientific inquiry. Cover of the first edition.
At the very least, he presents a useful target for the philosopher who wants to defend hi At first, I wasn’t sure I liked Consilience. If I believe biology will shed light on creativity plausible but that it will make negligible contributions to art interpretation more plausibleam I a consilience fan? In the end it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Wilson often just doesn’t see the problem. Reason will be advanced to new levels, and emotions played in potentially infinite patterns. They cross-talk with other complexes to form systems of systems, in places forming a circle, like a snake catching its own tail, to create reverberating circuits.
This seems abundantly obvious in virtually every discipline I could imagine: The most surprising thing about the book is that one expects Wilson’s underlying message to be cold and inhuman, but as it approached the final chapters I found the exact opposite was true.