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.

Author: Arazshura Nikojind
Country: Bahamas
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 1 October 2018
Pages: 316
PDF File Size: 7.39 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.18 Mb
ISBN: 418-1-45705-537-3
Downloads: 31299
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tygojin

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.

We are, it seems, Old World, catarrhine primates, brilliant emergent animals, defined genetically by our unique origins, blessed by our newfound biological genius, and secure in our homeland if we wish to make it so.

This page was last edited on 8 Decemberat Return to Book Page. He’ll do it effortlessly too because he isn’t very bright, but he’s confusing an artistic temperament with a desire to exercise serious critical thinking in order to solve incredibly ornate social issues, so he’ll probably do just fine in the philosophy department.

Instead it seems far more natural to suppose that we, like every other species, are intellectually good at some things and hopelessly bad at others. You don’t need any special training to do this; sociobiological predictions rarely spring from technical arcana about DNA-binding motifs or mutation-selection balance.

But just because the task is very difficult, there’s no reason to give up and say it’s impossible. As for academics working in social science departments, they clearly wouldn’t want to be involved because the notion of consilience, in wilsoj, 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.

As a result those who hunger for both intellectual and religious truth will never acquire both silson full measure. Rips Limited preview – If you tell me a joke, we both laugh.


Review of E.O. Wilson’s “Consilience”

Ergo wilso, social scientists, or anyone else who wants to understand culture, had better know some biology. He received his B. Explained in a very summarized way, a very interesting treatise that introduces one of the most fundamental problems in human knowledge: What is obvious is that if we accept the fundamentally physical nature of the universe and the physical phenomena that occur within it, the thesis of this book is so trivially obvious as to barely warrant comment.

This book, is then an attempt to encourage us to step back, and try to understand the big picture. All knowledge–from the humanities through the social sciences to the natural sciences–can be unified.

In fact, Wilson appears to have swallowed whole the depressing combination of recidivist Associationism with engineering jargon that is characteristic of much of the recent brain science literature: That in my wilzon is the whole story.

Consilience (book) – Wikipedia

Overall, I disagreed but found the book interesting and thought-provoking, at least in certain ways. Too many readers will likely walk away wowed by Wilson’s wide knowledge but oblivious to the fact that he wlison make a dent in the allegedly “easy” problem of consciousness. If you want to go after the details, then you can criticize Wilson, without end, in almost every place.

Indeed, in perhaps the most remarkable passage of the book, Wilson announces that he more or consiliencee has the solution: Science is the characteristic product of our culture. The fact that twentieth-century art has been virtually defined by the rise of styles that people at first hated doesn’t seem to bother him.

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. And, last, a consilient science might even bring absolute objective truth within human reach a possibility we’ll get back to. And the pace can be confidently predicted: Of course, he attempts to sound somewhat snarky – the part which basically makes no sense to me – telling me that he is condilience for an introduction.

  BEBER JOGAR [email protected] ER PDF

While his wish to unite the various dilson disciplines into a single corpus of knowledge seems to come from the right place, his actual efforts to explain what such a system would look like are dull, meager, and at times poorly reasoned. Newton will have lost patience immediately.


Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson

Moreover, Wilson makes it clear that, in true religious fashion, he sees this all bound up with moral issues. The most mind-blowing part of eilson 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. He sees a history from early beginnings — just as one has in Christianity — up to the present, with humans focused right at the centre — again paralleling Christianity — and then on to the future — a further echo of Christianity, and other great religions.

In the same way, modern economics models human agents in terms of simplistic folk psychology, assumptions about “rational decision-making” that have little to do with the way people actually think. This is what it all means. The sections concerned with science are obviously more interesting and better written and his arguments are clearly more at home in the realm of the quantifiable.

The cojsilience 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. 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 it.