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):||8 September 2015|
|PDF File Size:||8.66 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
What else could creativity or, for that matter, counting to ten be made of but nerve circuitry and neurotransmitters? Almost all scientific truths take the form of universal propositions reached by induction and are therefore permanently subject to doubt.
With the way things cnsilience in academia, nobody in the world could be qualified to write this book. Namely, Wilson argues that the humanities as a field can only be truly understood with a knowledge of the biological natures of our brains and how our brains through physical processes give rise to our minds.
In Consilience, Wilson sets himself the impossible task of arguing that all human knowledge can be reduced to key scientific principles. One ought to consilirnce evolution: Social scientists should know more about biology.
All students were required to take an consiliencf program of arts, sciences, humanities, and mathematics that included required courses for all in “The Nature of Man, The summer before my freshman year at SMU, consilince required reading list included C.
Consipience psychology is determined by physical states both biological and chemi The entire thesis of Consilience is one so shockingly obvious that I was astounded to discover that true controversy surrounded it. However, those that are willing to acknowledge the inherent faults of the social sciences while embracing their value as mere earnest reflections on terribly complex social issues with no conceivable answers, will enjoy Consilience as a sort of canonical statement of intellectual honesty spread across several disciplines.
Wilson is also surprisingly vague about the methods that lead to consilience. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. I read this soon after reading Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man, and it was a nice basis of contrast for Wilson’s eloquent, off-the-charts intelligent, narrowly conceived, and misleading book. Would the physicalistic unity of being entail the physicalistic unity of knowledge?
Consilience (book) – Wikipedia
The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. What we inherit are neurobiological traits that cause us to see the world in a particular way and to learn certain behaviors in preference to other behaviors. I don’t think that Wilson’s model explains, or ever can explain everything. The case for a bottom-up ontology is good enough, even as it stands, to warrant thinking hard about what it means to us if that turns out to be the sort of world we live in.
There is a huge amount of literature on the subject, starting with G. 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.
That is, natural vs. First we must admit there’s wilspn special about consciousness: I’ve come to feel the same way myself. Wilson Wulson preview – But in other places he suggests that science will help tell us why painting A is better than painting B–a traditionally artsy enterprise. At each stage, Wilson highlights connections linking higher levels to lower: But surely this doesn’t exhaust the role of science.
That or they’re just not curious enough about the natural world to want to read anything other than a bunch of esoteric babbling about the essence of their own being. Mar 30, Pages Buy.
As of course is also true of Jesus and the four Gospels. My days are full of interactions like this. Stumbling at times and moving elegantly at others, Wilson wilsob the reader through his vision of unifying the disciplines from physics and biology to anthropology and the arts.
That would be a spoiler, so you will have to read this book yourself.
When he announces his solution–often in a one-liner–he seems mildly astonished that no one previously saw wilaon simple an answer. It is worth asking repeatedly: But as philosophers have long pointed out, indeterminacy does not lead to freedom: Rather he divides up the intellectual turf in such a way that no one gets left holding the problem. Well of course it will.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
Ethicists if there are any in America should know more about Physics. I don’t agree with the overall thesis, nor do I agree with the way the arguement wilskn made. In the new understanding can be located the most effective means for reaching consensus. This book, is then an attempt to encourage us to step back, and try to unders Wilson’s point is that there was a time when a single person could know all the formalized knowledge that there was to know.
Aug 10, Jeff rated it it was amazing.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson
I attempted to pontificate on Kant’s categorical imperative, on Derrida’s notion of differenceand Nietzsche’s call for philosophers to philosophize with a hammer. His arguments are compelling, and he freely admits that he may be overreaching or that the the commonalities may be too reduced to be of much value, yet the problem, the idea, is worth pursuing. It is time, Wilson thinks, for the humanities and social sciences to join the party.
This is just one aspect of this great book, and a big part of Wilson’s proposal to create a sort of synthesis of the two academic worlds. And Wilson thinks he knows why: LitFlash The connsilience you want at the lowest prices. In other words, there is not much middle ground on this book. He lays out a powerful idea that deserves to be wre E.
Far more frequent, wioson, 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.