Rating: 
Summary: Self-Congratulatory and Out-dated Philosophy
Review: The author demonstrates a wonderful understanding of contemporary and popular science, and has a penchant for enthusiastic and exhilarating writing. This isn't surprising considering his credentials. It's obvious he has a passion for science, the work of science, and all of the accomplishments of science; so much so it reaches the point of self-congratulatory and hindsighted, not foresighted.
As an educational crash-course through the natural sciences and humanities, this book is good. But the author claims a lofty goal of "unity of knowledge," which clearly pushes his goal under a philosophical context.
This context, is where he drearily fails. Why? Because he openly REFUSES to recognize the philosophical context. He admittedly (in the chapter 2 I believe) proclaims all can be known by science and its monological studies, and anything that can't be examined in such a manner simply doesn't exist. From such a perspective the author remains crystalized in 1700 spouting cheers for Aristotle and Cartesian ideologies, completely disregarding over 200 years of post-modern and integrative thought. There is even a paragraph where he mentions that contemporary philosophers might accuse him of being a positivist, or a reductionist (popular ideologies for 100 years ago), to which he enthusiastically responds his guilt!
I was sorely disappointed by this book. The writing is good, the objective information is sufficient (although you'd do much better reading a science textbook), but the depth of thought doesn't progress further than incessant self-flattery and constant pats on the backs of his peers.
I bought this book for the sake it pursued a "Unity of Knowledge," and I am deeply interested in integrative thinking and philosophy. I've read many books on the subject, and this one comes so short, and covers such a small territory of the current intellectual trends, that it's almost insulting. This guy should of been born 200 years ago. Drivel like this was acceptable and "cutting edge" back then.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but Not Persuasive
Review: The thesis of Wilson's book is that DNA and the genome project are the underlying feature of all knowledge, bringing unity or consilience among so-called disparate studies.For example, in the study of culture: "culture helps to determine which of the prescribing genes survive and multiply from one generation to the next. Successful new genes alter the epigegentic rules of populations. The alter epigenetic rules change the direction and effectiveness of the channels of cultural acquisition." The social sciences should study genetic populations not individuals, because universal behavior is that which is most persistent and relevant to human behavior. Individual variants, while interesting in themselves, must be variants of universal human behavior in order to be fully understood and known in their relative context. Our knowledge, therefore, is limited to universals, not specifics. The imaginative arts starts with the real world genetics, claims Wilson, and builds upon it with coherent metaphors that give art and science their vibrance. The creative impulse is the flip side of science that must build itself up with archetypes, themes, and symbols that inspire relaxation and reinforce science's advancements. Religion is a hold over from centuries of man's evolution, in that, in the wild pre-man had to worry about being killed as well as killing other species. This holdover of genetic dominance and subordination finds its expression in the fear of some mythical beast, in this case of god. Our evolutionary hardwire leads individuals to substitute the myth that some supernatural being exists, even though the logical and positivistic basis for such a dominant being are now rationally debunked. The book is articulate, provocative, and covers a wide spectrum of ideas, but I didn't find all the arguments particularly persuasive. I thought the argument on the arts more of a meditation on archetypes than an argument of universal knowledge through genetics. The social sciences too was seemingly lame; knowledge as that limited to universals is a throw back to Aristotle. and seems to limit the daunting variety of humankind. The most successful was the religion and ethics; one can easily be ethical without a supreme being handing out punishment and rewards, and belief in god gets people nowhere but false comfort. One thing that irritated me was the lack of specific footnotes for the copious use of others' works; instead they are summarized in notes at the end of the book.
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: scientia
Review: This is a fine book about science. Clarity in prose about complex ideas is not as easy as it appears and E.O. Wilson makes it appear effortless and flowing. One need not agree with everything he says to be provoked to substantial thought by this book.
Rating: 
Summary: ". . . oh you mighty gods!"
Review: Wilson's book is labeled "science in the grand visionary tradition of Newton, Einstein, and Feynman." Although the author quickly evangelizes us with a conveniently Wilsonian Einstein ("Ionian to the core"), we would do well to consider that actual tradition of Newton, Einstein, and Feynman. Newton believed, as had Aristotle, that the unity of knowledge is not realized within the disciplines of natural science, but might be approached through First Philosophy and that natural science is, by constitution, wholly human and thus wholly theoretical and tentative. Einstein, like his friend Kurt Gödel being something of a Platonist, believed that there does exist true mystery beyond the grasp of natural science (he saw natural science itself as a spiritual dance with a genuine mystery). Feynman surely fought his own battles with a personal scientism, yet he insisted that "all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses . . . and you cannot know. . ." Wilson weakly pretends to concur, but his thesis here ultimately pleads that we reject such clear-eyed humility. He has been called Darwin's heir -- fitting in that he has a nineteenth century understanding of what science actually is. (Please read on. . .)
Wilson is a sometimes venerated academian "captured by the dream of unified learning." In 'Consilience', he unfortunately parrots some pompous foolishness. Science is not honestly served by donning rose-colored glasses and crowning itself -- inevitably, if "not yet" -- functionally omniscient (although this idea has a certain popular constituency!). I habitually read science and am fortunate to have several friends who are scientists. My interests often bring me into company with still other scientists. I relate this as foundational to my observation that many scientists have less difficulty accepting the absolutely tentative nature of human knowledge than does Mr. Wilson. Beyond the arrogance concomitant to the general argument of 'Consilience' (i.e., imperialistic institutional "science" IS the omniscient priesthood to whom all unenlightened inferiors will bow in subjection, even if "not yet"), it is rife with internal contradiction and both logical and historical failure. Human science is a human discipline. Humans, including scientists, are innately prone to error, narrowness of thought, constraints imposed by personal beliefs and psychologies, and variously motivated "dreams" (witness Wilson's). Humans, including scientists, are subject to temporal, cultural and industrial influences and pressures. Within these industrial influences we must include those of academia, i.e., the industry of education and its market-entangled paradigms (the author pretends to understand this, but obviously does not). Human science has never been precisely true or whole, nor is there any purely scientific reason to believe that this is possible, read Feynman in this regard, or Whitehead or Schrödinger, or even Wittgenstein whose view of science was essentially opposite Whitehead's. (For contemporary commentary see Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, Thomas Kuhn or, for that matter, nearly any sober physicist.) Human science has historically never gotten to the conclusive "bottom" of ANYTHING (we still don't have a completed theory of gravitation!), nor do we know that, in principle, such a grandiose insight is attainable (even if, at some point, we believe we have attained it). Our presumably most accurate scientific insights (Maxwell's electromagnetic theory or Einstein's energy-matter equation, for example) ask deeper questions. Within material science's own dictums remains that which lies beyond the reach of empirical science, which, for example, will never examine the alleged primordial "quantum void" from which the material world is supposed to have fortuitously sprung. Suppose the 'holy grail' of material reductionism were captured, the fabled Theory of Everything. It would provide a ground for a self-referenced circle of pragmatic "knowledge" -- but the ontological mystery would remain, smiling silently in nearby shadows, whispering to those willing to hear, "and why, oh mighty genius, do you suppose this IS?" Further (and the truth hurts), "science" has rarely been purely beneficial. Science discovered how to harness nuclear energy but doesn't know what to do with the dangerous waste it creates in doing so, nor what to do with the fact that certain humans desire to apply this discovery murderously. Science discovered antibiotics but doesn't know exactly how they can be used wisely rather than foolheartedly (and dangerously). Although few recognize it, bio-engineered food crops increasingly present a related dilemma. Science discovered various insights with which industry and technology-drunk consumers are now scraping holes in the ozone layer. Parroting convenient bombast, Wilson would blame theism (p 268, Consilience, 1999)! Intimating that such things don't really reflect an endemic ignorance within human "knowledge" so much as they provide examples of what science does "not yet" know, highlights a pathological delusion. Wilson's claims here are not grounded in history, in science, or in pure logic, they are classic 'true belief'. Human science is wonderful, yet finally human, and when we humans are most intoxicated with our own genius, we inevitably prove that we are dangerously ignorant jesters.
We have barely scratched the surface of the body of error in this thesis, but I will desist. (Please read Wendell Berry's sagacious rebuttal of Wilson's Consilience.) Yes, science is a highly valuable means of approaching and approximating truth, but belief in "the unity of knowledge" does not logically suggest that human "genius" can ultimately encircle it. The natural domain of pure materialism is natural science, the human interrogation of the material world. The appropriate methodology of natural science is reduction. Virtually no one disagrees on these points. Scientism, unsupported by either natural science or logic, demands that this domain and method equate to the whole of reality and evangelizes this doctrine as the sovereign of all knowledge. Sobriety rejects Wilson's delusions of grandeur, pretensions of benevolent genius, imperialism of denied ignorance.
This book deserves broad critical attention precisely because it is valuable to see how foolish those popularly seen as wise often are, how unscientific an acclaimed scientist can be. "I see not how certainty can be obtained in any science." - Newton
"We cannot make the mystery go away by 'explaining' how it works." - Feynman
|
