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.
|Published (Last):||11 April 2007|
|PDF File Size:||1.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I have been fascinated by the idea of a convergence of different schools of thoughts into a iwlson whole. Obvious that you can think it wise to incorporate measures of environmental health into traditional economic indices without thinking this involves the collapse of a social science into a natural one. Here are some of my favorites: Of course there will be many incensed reviews, given all the toes he steps on through the course of the book.
Science’s role gets reduced to pointing out facts like people feel blue consilisnce rocks don’t, and to explaining the basis of this difference presumably, people have brains and rocks don’t. He disappointedly intones, “OK thanks”.
Review of E.O. Wilson’s “Consilience”
It does not accord, we know now, with the evidence of how the brain works. General opinion is that the time has surely come for a retraction.
This is “why so many accomplished scientists are narrow foolish people, and why so many wise scholars in the field are considered weak scientists. This is a great book. This article has multiple issues.
Book Review: “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge,” Edward O. Wilson
There is a huge amount of literature on the subject, starting with G. One ought to promote evolution: Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. The philosophers simply have to be wrong, and since it is they who mistakenly consiliejce raised the queries, let them find the answers to their own pseudo problems. People who want to understand LOST. Although Wilson seems to think there is a possibility of free will, given sociobiology, he gets it less from the compatibility of laws and freedom, and more from a clnsilience of indeterminacy which he sees in nature.
The only difference between this transmission and Wilson’s is that it takes some man-made not biological technology to do Wilson’s kind.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge – Edward O. Wilson – Google Books
In the last there is not. Everything is physical perhaps, but surely there are many different kinds of physical things. I’ve focused on one aspect of this wonderful book, but aside from its central thesis, eilson is so much practical information on evolution, neuroscience, biology, and basic intellectual xonsilience, to be gleaned from it.
But the payoff from all this is potentially huge. The alternative–boundless percipience–seems downright unbiological. Maybe this kind of picture is a viable alternative to consilience. It’s not annoying that he was asking for help, and because I’m too hep to want to help a clueless tool like that.
Wilson tells us — as he has told us before — about his childhood: Then I make a passive attempt to placate him by recommending Bertrand Russel’s History of Western Philosophy in the most sincere way possible, explaining that it’s really funny and informative.
Wilson then takes his consiliemce of genetics and natural selection and applies these lessons to human culture, the social sciences, the arts and religion. This brings me to the other side to the equation. I especially appreciated his retracing the history of the enlightenment and wison power of man’s intellect.
He tries conzilience less than proposing to bring not only the sciences but humanities under a single umbrella. Though he never draws these thoughts together in a single discussion, what he does say –championing fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants intellectual daring–is worth saying. It’s a lofty one, and also one that is probably neglected by practicing scientists because, as Wilson mentions, they are mainly specialists working in esoteric fields, with far too much work on their hands to consiliebce any time to giving such a theoretical project much consideration at all.
In Consilience, Wilson sets himself the impossible task of arguing that all human knowledge can be reduced to consiliende scientific principles.
It is far easier to go background through the branching corridors than to go forward. This is the extreme Consilienfe belief that Armageddon is approaching, and that there will be a great fight between the forces of good and the forces of evil: Then On Human Naturehis immensely controversial look at the role of genes in our behavior and culture.
Those who pretend otherwise are simply not speaking the truth.
These, though interesting, have the feel of expanded lecture notes, and cover what most of us have already seen and read before. I’m assuming all of this because, as I mentioned, I was eavesdropping, and I was hearing a lot of not-so-confidently stated gibberish about Heidegger’s methodology of phenomenology and something supposedly profound that his professor said about cobsilience.
Wilson provides superb overviews of Western intellectual history and the current state of understanding in many academic disciplines.
And neither is mentioned by Wilson. Consilience was connsilience wonderfully enhanced wake up call to many of my thoughts regarding philosophy, the social sciences, and the invariable superiority of the natural sciences.
We can connect threads into broadening webs of explanation, because we Gene-culture coevolution, the Ionian enchantment, “dreaming is a kind of insanity, a rush of visions”