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. Wilson was excoriated for his knowledge claims, for his logic, for his intentions, and for his conclusions. Consilience was truly judged to be a. “A dazzling journey across the sciences and humanities in search of deep laws to unite them.” –The Wall Street Journal One of our greatest.
|Published (Last):||18 May 2010|
|PDF File Size:||11.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.23 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The leash connecting culture to biology to use one of Wilson’s favorite images may well be real, but it gets stretched conailience thin that it’s often just not worth worrying about. Anyway, that’s what I read, back when I gave a shit. The book is dense with ideas and requires more than one reading as well as an exploration of at least some of the references in the excellent notes in order to get the full benefits of Wilson’s work.
The book argues for mutual cooperation between biology and other branches of knowledge, as well as for protection of and conservation in the planet.
I suspect, but obviously don’t know, that Wilson would argue that science has thankfully always turned a deaf ear to such defeatist worries and that it would be both foolish conilience irresponsible for scientists to give up the good fight. I’ll often just choose a novel instead because it’s a way of reminding myself that this is the reading that I set aside for emotional escapism. Aug 30, Todd Martin rated conilience liked it Shelves: For me, this book is a great contribution to know the state of the matter.
The subject reads a sad novel and we–reading this mind script–follow the narrative and also feel sad, and so on. As of now, the hardest part is to reconcile a physicalistic ontology with the apparently ineliminable multiplicity of discourses that we require when we try to say how things are.
I especially appreciated E. For a such an ambitious stated intention, I was expecting something much more tightly reasoned with exactingly stated theoretical foundations.
First blush, anyhow, the world is a great democracy of facts, each set up in business on its own. Indeed maybe there are hosts of problems that lie beyond our intellectual grasp. Much of this is pretty bleak, but he does hold hope for the future if man immediately tackles the key issues.
Book Review: “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge,” Edward O. Wilson
As for academics working in social science departments, they clearly wouldn’t want to be involved because the notion of consilience, in essence, really utilizes a majority of the methods and approaches of the natural sciences to explore more complicated and abstract social concerns, thus eliminating the role that the actual sociologist or philosopher plays at this point.
Now I don’t doubt that such wilosn thing is possible. I don’t agree, but I am intrigued nonetheless. Natural science may understand, to an extent, the genetic basis of “bricks” of human nature, but it wilsom says little about the societal structures that we have built with them, and his near complete neglect of social science in this regard is stunning.
What I argue, therefore, is that to consklience Wilson and particularly to read Consilience as a work of formal philosophy is to miss entirely the wood for the trees. And, of course, truly all but the ignorant know full well that there are differences between the sexes. More important, science’s big role here in the transmission of feeling gets us absolutely nowhere with the hard problem of consciousness. For while science may be consigned to permanent impotence over say, subjective feeling, it would get handed a new and likely tractable problem: Once we get over the shock of discovering that the universe was not made with us in mind, all the meaning the brain can master, and all the emotions it can bear, and all the shared adventure we might wish to enjoy, can be found by deciphering the hereditary orderliness that has borne our species through geological time and stamped it with the residues of deep history.
The disciplines are too boldly demarcated, it is often said, each a small nation state prowled about by a tight pride of leonine experts who snap at ignorant layman invaders. He seems, in the end, to be conscious of this omission, but contents conslience with the stance of Rousseau, self-professed enemy of books and writing, whose work Emile he quotes: Wilson has, it turns out, immersed himself in the obscurantist scribblings of Derrida and company.
For example, a genetic predisposition to some type of cancer doesn’t mean you’ll get it. The concepts are the nodes or reference points in long-term memory … Recall with images from the long-term banks with little or no linkage is just memory. Not surprisingly, black, white, red and green are standard ingredients in most languages, while chartreuse kicks in later.
As a result those who hunger for both intellectual and religious truth will never acquire both in full measure.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
That something of the sort is so, and that the basic facts concern the physics of things that are very small, seems central to the view of the world that has been emerging from scientific inquiry for the last five hundred years. He fulfills and elucidates the materialist stance that the universe is a physical one, devoid of the supernatural. If you tell me a sad story, we both feel sad.
I find meaning, if anywhere, in still small voices within — or from Schubert Lieder without! As I looked down I saw, of all things, a pristine Black Flag sweatshirt as in, like, not a hoodie. And here’s where the trouble starts: Wilson uses the term consilience to describe the synthesis of knowledge from different specialized fields of human endeavor.
The Unity of Knowledge Edward O. Wilson Vintage Books- Philosophy – pages 25 Reviews https: Wilson understands that consciousness represents a and likely the critical link in his consilience project.
But the issue is not whether scientists should or should not try to conquer consciousness, art, or free will, but whether we have any grounds for expecting success–any grounds, that is, for taking Wilson’s quixotic vision of the unity of knowledge seriously.
But Wilson’s whole point is that questions traditionally sitting outside science– mind-body, aesthetics and ethics– are legitimate scientific problems. Instead he seems to just sort of vaguely point in a direction things might go.
Far more frequent, however, is the joining forces of scientific disciplines at more or less the same explanatory level; and in these cases, no reduction need be achieved or intended. There is no question it is an important book.