Scan barcode
A review by miklosha
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson
4.0
E.O. Wilson is considered to be a pretty controversial figure. The person who started the field of 'sociobiology', the one who is now challenging evolutionary psychology's basic understanding of altruism, and is also a leading advocate for conservationism and environmental sustainability is going to turn a few heads (both in admiration and anger).
"Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge", one of his older books, really should be considered a companion work next to his book introducing Sociobiology. Wilson's argument, that the only way for knowledge to progress and scientific understandings and developments to prosper, is for both the natural sciences and the social sciences to end their feuds and work together. Both branches off invaluable insight, research, and information about human nature and yet, both pictures are incomplete. Joining both could be of immense benefit to all. Most of his book covers the concept of a biology/culture co-evolution, which would be a good mechanism for reuniting the social and the natural sciences.
For the exception of chapters 9-11, Wilson's book is hardly controversial; indeed, I can't imagine any legitimate criticisms that would cause Wilson to revise his argument. Chapter 9 (on the social sciences), Chapter 10 (on the interpretation of Arts), and Chapter 11 (Ethics & Religion) are the only parts of the book that I could see incite some kind of anger, from say a sociologist, a postmodernist, a theologian, and the like.
From a philosophical perspective, Wilsons argument on the 'unity of knowledge' is vague; Wilson doesn't clarify what he means by knowledge and how to unify 'all knowledge'. Also, his levels of analysis, that every discipline can be reduced to biology or even physics, is an immensely daunting and arguably impossible task. Lastly, for all his goals in his book, his writing is rather vague; he is rather poetic and while it is a great quality in a writer, much of his arguments beg clarification.
I personally found his arguments to be persuasive and given how dated this book is, current research on the three respective fields of the social sciences, the arts, and religion have yielded swaths of information that should motivate Wilson to write an updated version of Consilience.
Overall, the book is incredibly well argued and should form the backbone of arguments advocating for the joining of the natural and the social sciences.
"Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge", one of his older books, really should be considered a companion work next to his book introducing Sociobiology. Wilson's argument, that the only way for knowledge to progress and scientific understandings and developments to prosper, is for both the natural sciences and the social sciences to end their feuds and work together. Both branches off invaluable insight, research, and information about human nature and yet, both pictures are incomplete. Joining both could be of immense benefit to all. Most of his book covers the concept of a biology/culture co-evolution, which would be a good mechanism for reuniting the social and the natural sciences.
For the exception of chapters 9-11, Wilson's book is hardly controversial; indeed, I can't imagine any legitimate criticisms that would cause Wilson to revise his argument. Chapter 9 (on the social sciences), Chapter 10 (on the interpretation of Arts), and Chapter 11 (Ethics & Religion) are the only parts of the book that I could see incite some kind of anger, from say a sociologist, a postmodernist, a theologian, and the like.
From a philosophical perspective, Wilsons argument on the 'unity of knowledge' is vague; Wilson doesn't clarify what he means by knowledge and how to unify 'all knowledge'. Also, his levels of analysis, that every discipline can be reduced to biology or even physics, is an immensely daunting and arguably impossible task. Lastly, for all his goals in his book, his writing is rather vague; he is rather poetic and while it is a great quality in a writer, much of his arguments beg clarification.
I personally found his arguments to be persuasive and given how dated this book is, current research on the three respective fields of the social sciences, the arts, and religion have yielded swaths of information that should motivate Wilson to write an updated version of Consilience.
Overall, the book is incredibly well argued and should form the backbone of arguments advocating for the joining of the natural and the social sciences.