Rating: 
Summary: Challenging and thought provoking!
Review: This book is excellent. The author is interested in encouraging humanity to bring together it's various forms of knowledge and theory in order to build a better world. It's extremely enthusiastic, reflecting a very positive and enlightenment-era perspective. He posits that all studies of science from bioloy to economics to politics is united by a common system of underlying laws whose understanding is within the reach of human reason. He believes that the attainment of this understanding is inevitable and useful. It makes logical sense, and I personally can see examples of it in every day life. Evolutionary biology has explained to us how unplanned, blind changes can result in remarkable complexity. The study of the function of free markets has demonstrated the exact same thing. As individuals pursue their own benefits, desires, and success in a free market economy order emerges out of chaos and growing complexity develops. One of the most fascinating aspects of his arguments was on human nature and the brain sciences and I read several sections multiple times. The explanation of the differences between empiricists and transcendentalists was in accord with the field of biology, if not theology and provoked instense personal thought on my part. There are obviously much more sophisticated theist apologies out there the author doesn't examine that the reader should. I found it extremely curious that Wilson tends toward Deism after having presented his material and rationale. The idea of a deity that is a conscious person (which Deism implies) seems at odds with his arguments. Edward O. Wilson is a consumate intellectual and his writing is both challenging and fascinating. You will probably want to read several sections a few times due to both of these qualities. Is he too optimistic on human nature and too enthusiastic for the future? Perhaps. Is he onto something significant? I would say most definitely yes.
Rating:
Summary: A Paradigm Firmly Rooted in the Natural Sciences
Review: Consilience is an eloquently crafted, labyrinthine, and challenging book that richly rewards the persevering reader. Wilson shines here with authoritative prose that, as Horace might say, both "delights and instructs." In opening Consilience with an account of his early epiphanies as a biologist, Wilson immediately makes it clear that the "Ionian Enchantment" - "a conviction that the world is orderly and can be explained by a small number of natural laws" - he experienced at a young age still serves as the wellspring of his zeal for the natural sciences. At first blush this zeal seemed to me a strong provincial bias that might constrain Wilson's willingness to embrace a grand synthesis of the varied "ways of knowing", which would encompass the humanities and social science as complementary partners. Yet, when I read chapter 4 (The Natural Sciences), I was struck by Wilson's at-once sweeping and aphoristic take on the Scientific Method. Within an eye-blink span of 20 pages, after exploring the emergence of scientific inquiry during the Enlightenment, he makes a compelling case for the Method being the conceptual engine to consolidate and progressively structure all of human rational inquiry through its cycle of reductionism and synthesis. On numerous occasions throughout the book he elaborates how the advancement of biology as a branch of learning has been informed, augmented, and accelerated by rational inquiry in the fields of physics and chemistry. Then, he extrapolates this process to the possibility of cracking the most intractable domains of inquiry: the physical basis of mind, the functional dynamics of ecosystems and climate, and the origins of the universe. Ultimately, at the risk of alienating the postmodernists, Wilson succeeds in demonstrating that the universe is, in fact, fully intelligible to the human intellect.
Rating: 
Summary: more praise than practice
Review: I think E.O. Wilson's powers as a populizer are overstated. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, Daniel Dennett, Philip Kitcher and Michael Ruse have written more lucidly on science, especially evolution. Two of my three stars go to this book as a broad intellectual history, where it succeeds. As for the book's main argument, that all the strands of human knowledge can and should fruitfully converge, I am less convinced. The writing is part of the problem. Even when the individual sentences are well-assembled and the words well-chosen, which is is usually the case, Wilson tends to change topics and allow arguments to dissolve before completion. The controversial portion of the argument seeks to establish that assorted fields like economics, ethics, and the arts can be somehow improved if they are more firmly grounded in "real" psychology and a "real" apprehension of human nature, conceived as products of humankind's evolutionary history. How would these fields be improved under conditions of consilience, according to Wilson? Applied to a quoted passage from Milton's Paradise Lost, Wilson points out that Milton's description conforms to evolved, hard-wired conceptions of beauty. Fine. So what? Says Wilson: "Works of enduring value are truest to these [evolved] origins. It follows that even the greatest works of art might be understood fundamentally with knowledge of the biologically evolved epigenetic rules that guided them." Well, no, it doesn't necessarily follow -- for starters, knowledge of origins doesn't necessarily confer understanding -- this sounds like the beginning of what might be an intriguing inquiry; unfortunately, however, this is presented as a conclusion in this book. It is entirely possible that others will come along to flesh out one or more of the intriguing inquiries begun in this book. In turn, such treatments may create truly useful linkages that are currently unknown or barely understood. E. O. Wilson will deserve credit for having sketched the frame of such inquiries. But if you are looking for consilience per se, and not just an encomium to the idea of it, keep looking.
Rating:
Summary: This will never work. . . .
Review: Ever since reading Martin Gardner's -Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science-, I've always been troubled by books that lead off with the assertion that various "experts" will dismiss what the author has to say out of hand. This does not inspire confidence. The "Enlightenment" was doomed from the beginning: doomed, mostly, by the inherited biological traits that Wilson's better work in science shows as putting constraints on human culture. Derrida and especially Foucault were on to something: it really is all about power. Humans find it difficult to think with the detachment they'd have to because they spend too much of their time occupied with stupid primate social games. Nobody is going to be able to herd these apes into coordinating their scientific efforts across disciplines, without each group of specialists wanting theirs to be queen of the sciences, and my contribution to be the brightest gem in the crown. Chimpanzee politics dooms consilience.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't quite come together
Review: Though I've read and appreciated several books by E.O. Wilson, and I've also enjoyed similar works by authors such as Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins, I found "Consilience" to be a very difficult read. For starters, I had a hard time wrapping my mind around the title. I know what "consilience" means literally, but somehow the exact connotation of the word--the SPIRIT of the word--continues to elude me. After Wilson's fascinating chapter on the Enlightenment, I plodded through the middle chapters, which consist largely of ideas about evolutionary biology and culture that I've read of elsewhere, in books like Pinker's "How the Mind Works" and in Wilson's own "On Human Nature." I was hoping for a big payoff at the end--something that Pinker delivered in spades in the aforementioned work, which was also quite a difficult read at times--but I never got it. Instead, the book ends with a chapter about ecological crisis that feels tacked-on, as if Wilson felt the need to justify all the abstract theorizing by presenting some real-life issues. I realize that this is a complicated book and that Wilson is trying to convey some big ideas here, so the reader should not necessarily expect a smashing conclusion. This is, after all, a book that is not just meant to be read, but also to be discussed. Curiously, however, I have been at a loss to explain to my friends what I gained from reading "Consilience." Even before I picked it up, I was in general agreement with Wilson's idea that all knowledge is connected and that the various academic disciplines are too separate for their own good. After reading "Consilience," I have perhaps a slightly broader understanding of this concept, but I don't believe my perspective has been changed enough to justify the many hours I spent struggling with this book. Perhaps the best thing about "Consilience" is the mere fact that it exists. Wilson's idea is an important one, and now that there is a book floating around in which he explains the idea, people are bound to take notice. I agree that sociologists need to be more knowledgable about psychology, that economists need to be more knowledgable about ecology, and so on. There are a lot of people who could benefit considerably from reading "Consilience." But those who are already familiar with Wilson, Pinker, and similar writers may find "Consilience" to be largely redundant--with most of the chapters better suited for skimming than reading.
Rating:
Summary: Imaginative and Enthusiastic!
Review: This book is a very imaginative and enthusiastic attempt at putting knowledge in the sciences and the arts together. I think Wilson has put together a wonderful story. You can feel his enthusiasm and energy in this book and this makes the book difficult to put down once we start reading it. Although his vision may or may not be accurate (only time will tell), his enthusiasm for it is what makes this book so meaningful and enjoyable. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has wondered why about life. I also recommend "Rhythm, Relationships, and Transcendence" by Toru Sato if you have wondered why about life. They come from different perspective but both are great books!
Rating: 
Summary: Christian response to Scientific Materialism
Review: While Mr. Wilson's ideas are not new, they are packaged well. He is gifted in rhetoric, and doubtless his book will serve to influence many people and secure funding for his field. This is unfortunate, because his field is most accurately described as scientific materialism and neo-social Darwinism. Consilience, Mr. Wilson tells us, is the realistic march toward the "unification of knowledge." He laments that science has spread into so many disciplines and the average scientist is highly specialized. Now it occurs to me (from my own study of mathematics, electrical engineering and observation of others) that this is entirely necessary because the scope of human knowledge has long since passed that which can be achieved by an individual mind. Not only did Mr. Wilson fail to mention this, but he goes on to talk about highly technical scientific areas (neuroscience, chaos mathematical theory, particle physics to name a few) outside of his specialty of biology in a manner that didn't convey a scrap of humility. It could be that he possesses extreme genius, but I think it more likely that he understands only a tiny fraction of those other fields. That said, he has picked out parts of those other specialty areas that support his view of scientific materialism. I am confident, given this philosophy, that Mr. Wilson would resurrect Eugenics via genetic manipulation to create a posthuman/transhuman capable of the kind of genius required for "Consilience." Despite the logical and historical link between Darwinism and Eugenics, Wilson remains largely silent about this. I think this is because human cloning and genetically engineered "people" are highly unpopular, and his book needs to attract people (and funding) to his ideas. Perhaps this is why he has chosen the more popular issues of global warming and overpopulation as his final call to arms, despite the fact that they don't seem compatible with scientific materialism and neo-social Darwinism. The reason I think they are incompatible is this. These philosophies hold that were are nothing more than a complex (biological) machine that was formed by millions of years of ruthless competition with and defeat of rival species. This view provides no motivation to deal with the very real problem of evil. It very much tends toward the nihilistic cliché "there is no good or evil, only power and those strong enough to seize it," which is as least as old as the Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Socrates dialogue in Plato's Republic. If you do not admire this ethic, you may want to examine the competing view (beyond the straw man argument "The Transcendentalist" Wilson puts up on page 264 of my edition of Consilience). This is what I have done, and I am now a Christian. Wilson relies heavily on rhetoric against Christianity in his assertion for scientific materialism. Consider where he compares the Christian annunciation and resurrection to drug based hallucinations (pages 77-80), or when he compares adherence to religious authority to a cringing, whining submission to a snarling alpha wolf or monkey (pg 283). It is an obvious appeal to competitive pride (who wants to be thought of as a sniveling, fearful dominated animal?) later cemented by a hypothetical visit from extraterrestrials who conclude we only recently evolved from nonhuman primates (we can't let them think we're that far BEHIND, can we?). He gets his nastiest on page 268: where he links the Christian rejection of sin and belief in an afterlife with cruelty, genocide, environmental exploitation and suicidal martyrdom. He then slips in a fuzzy statistic (a subject I do no something about) to claim that almost all scientists are atheists or agnostics-Mark Twain must have rolled over in his grave. He makes full use of other widespread cultural myths: the Newton apple story (pg 32), the Galileo flap (pg 35), the battle of Science & Reason, and of course the one which his whole book is based-the universal scientific acceptance of "survival of the fittest" (pg 180) Darwinism. You will not find the likes of Fred Hoyle, Arthur Peacock, Michael Denton, or Michael Behe mentioned in Consilience. Readers of Consilience should be reminded that evolution is not incompatible with theism. "Survival of the fittest" Darwinism, by contrast, employs the philosophy of hell-that creatures lives only at the expense of others, mostly by killing them. It seems to ignore or distort things like symbiosis, or the cooperation of cells in an organism.
Before making up your mind about Mr. Wilson's claims, I recommend examining the following links: On the scientific debates surrounding evolution theory, especially the mechanism of natural selection:
Rating: 
Summary: Cuts a wide swath...
Review: This book is an ambitious undertaking, attempting to join disparate scientific and science-based social and philosophical disciplines together with a coherent and cohesive explanation -- respect for and adherence to scientific method as the glue. The book branches from there into recommendations for resolving dilemmas of the human condition.
For the most part, it succeeds. Occasional diversions to explain shortcomings of faith-based explanations towards elusive universal understanding seem to weaken the arguments, taking the flavor of "why I defected from a major faith and why you should, too." I understand the urge to do so, but don't think it adds to the arguments he puts forth. He does show how scientific disciplines are related by empiricism and tested theories that build one upon the other, in narrow and deep slices, but which, when taken from the ten thousand-foot level, fit together like so many interlocking blocks. Hopefully. When they do, it could hint that we are onto something. But what happens when a central dogma of the sciences, such as DNA-to-RNA-to-protein is overturned? This may happen, soon, and the question is, will such consilience be overturned? Fortunately, no. Like other complex, chaotic systems, the system of scientific inquiry and discovery does have self-correcting mechanisms and can absorb the overturned theory without necessary breaking the causal chain and throwing the system into disequilibrium. This very capability for a complex system to be both profoundly affected by small perturbations in some cases and to absorb and negate them in other cases is not unlike the biosphere of which Wilson seeks to defend through his sobering conclusions near the end of the book. I found his recommendations for human survival in the preservation of natural ecosystems compelling. Something he failed to mention is that man, too, can be a part of the natural order of things, if care is taken to tread lightly. An added benefit is profound improvement in the quality of our own lives, for it is in this environment where we also feel most alive.
Rating:
Summary: Beckoning beacon
Review: If science is in need of a father figure, Ed Wilson is clearly the man best suited to the task. He has demonstrated his leading role in many works, but none reached the heights this book achieves. While his challenging 1975 work "Sociobiology" resulted in a storm of controversy, few books [excepting Darwin's Origin] have spurred more scientific effort. Wilson's autobiography, "Naturalist" conveyed how far-reaching his thinking can go. "Consilience" extends that reach beyond his own discipline of biology to encompass all the social sciences and into the arts and religion [but not theology!]. As with any work of his, this book exhibits his crisp narrative style. Wilson has an outstanding ability to cover the leading topics in science in combination with the humanities. Unlike many of his noisy critics, Wilson is unwilling to exclude humanity from the forces of Darwinian evolution. Consilience seeks to expand thinking about evolution's impact on the entire human condition. He harks back to the ideas of the Enlightenment, particularly those of Condorcet, who he equates with Jefferson, in taking the broadest view of the world and the place of humanity within it. From here, Wilsion expounds on the process of science and how it has been validated. Even with its triumphs, science has not displaced the humanities, nor, in Wilson's view, should it. Various pressures separated the natural sciences and philosophy after the Enlightenment. In today's world, the breach has been widened by the "post-modernists" who flatly deny any universal aspect of human behaviour. Wilson is particularly harsh on the "deconstruction" movement of recent years. It must be noted here that any natural scientist who has read Derrida and comprehends him is worth rallying to and following. Wilson's call rejects post-modernism and urges a bridging of the abyss separating the natural sciences and the humanities. Wilson's Bridge is constructed of known materials established in a new way. Rebutting the false critics who label him a "genetic determinist," Wilson calls for a new study field of "gene-culture coevolution," in which he sees culture created by a "communal mind made up of individual minds which are the product of the genetically structured human brain." The genetic structure permits flexible interaction with the other minds of the community, making the culture evolve along with the individuals. Once this concept is accepted within both the humanities and scientific disciplines, consilience will be successfully launched. The arts and religions are not excepted from this programme. Wilson urges those in the arts to seek out the evolutionary roots of artistic expression and find new insights for artistic expression. Wilson eschews the organized religions as the final arbiters of ethics. Centuries of debate boil down to a duality: "Either ethical precepts . . . are independent of human experience or else they are human inventions." He further contends that empirical reasoning should look to his gene-culture coevolution concept to better understand what truly underlies ethical precepts. He sees "the current expansion of scientific inquiry into the deeper processes of human thought [will make] this venture feasible." It's an inquiry we should all follow with interest.
Rating:
Summary: "A better quality of life is the universal goal of humanity"
Review: In my education and career background in Electronics Engineering, I'm accustomed to complexities in mathematics, physics and technology---but this excellent book was an INCREDIBLE stretch! Wilson's primary achievements are in biology, but his mastery extends to every field of knowledge. The natural sciences of physics, chemistry and biology; the social sciences of anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science; the humanities, philosophy, ethics, and religion, are all addressed in his attempt to find "consilience," a word he chose over "coherence." Physicists since before Einstein have been trying to formulate a "unified theory" to consistently explain the effects of gravity and electromagnetic fields. Wilson is considerably more ambitious, trying to promote the idea of common scientific theory and method for ALL areas of human knowledge--- and he makes a compelling and interesting case for this concept!! His ideas about genes and culture are a convincing case for evolutionary origins for culture, with strong relationships between the two. He strongly argues that "human nature" has resulted from interaction between genes and environment, and that nature and nurture work together in ways that could be examined more deeply, scientifically, to better understand the roots of culture. He advocates the extension of common scientific method into the social sciences, which he believes have largely failed. The reasonable expectation of these sciences is the ability to predict what will happen if society selects one course of action over another. How are they doing? "Not very well, considering their track record in comparison with the resources placed at their command." Hard to argue with that assessment! "Today various factions favor ideological positions ranging from laissez-faire capitalism to radical socialism, while a few promote---post-modernist relativism that question the very idea of objective knowledge itself." His criticism of the social sciences is harsh, but consistent with my own views. He discusses art, and the potential for better understanding and interpretation through scientific analysis of the mind, psychology, and creativity. Didn't find much insight here. He makes a strong case for biological, evolutionary roots for ethics and religion. He sees a dichotomy between the transcendentalist (god-given rules) and the empiricist (man-developed rules), and summarizes each case in what may have been the most interesting chapter for me. Wilson is unabashedly in the empiricist camp, and characterizes his religious orientation as "deist," but not "theist." (Believes in supreme being, but not concerned with our individual lives). His final chapter is called "To What End?" Here he gets into the state of the world, and describes what another writer has called the "Litany"---the standard forecasts of imminent ecological disaster, with lots of supporting statistics. (For another view of the same statistics, see "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Bjorn Lomburg.) To describe those who disagree with the apocalyptic view of the environment, Wilson coins the term "exemptionalist" as opposed to "environmentalist", much like another author coined the terms "takers" and "leavers." These kinds of terms are pejorative, and do not advance the discussion of environmental policy issues, in my opinion. (The intellectual equivalent of talk-show hosts who like to talk about environmental "whackos"!) To his credit, Wilson closes this chapter by urging those with differing views of the environment to GET TOGETHER, with the following tacit understanding: "No one can seriously question that a better quality of life for everyone is the unimpeachable universal goal of humanity." A VERY interesting and compelling piece of work. I admire the author for tackling such an ambitious and broad subject, and it will surely be found to be valuable by many!!
|
