E.O. Wilson Revisited


I just read EO Wilson's "Consilience: The Unity Of Knowledge" and
thought, My God, he's talking about the Glass Bead Game. It was all
there: the language to unify knowledge, the importance of connections,
the glass beads themselves which are inate concepts that are the fruit
of evolution, a synthesis of humanities and science.

He is wisely not all that specific on the form of such a language, but
I would say a sort of scientific poetry and mythology. Seems
oxymoronic? Of course it does, that is the point. Or one could say
poetic and mythic science and come to the same result. Impossible? I
think not.


Natural philosophy! An idea whose time has come again.

Ragland:
E.O. Wilson is a polarizing figure. He goes out of his way to be a
polarizing figure. This is in regards to his founding of sociobiology
and his call for "consilience". One could make the
argument this is good because it stirs people up and may help them
think about the issues raised by Wilson. However, I would say overall
it has resulted in negative effects. I was online and came across Niles
Eldrege and Stephen Jay Gould's responses to E.O. Wilson's
"Consilience". They didn't go into details but launched off on how
Wilson was inappropriately reducing the social sciences and humanities.
To both Eldredge and Gould the humanities and social sciences involved
consciousness and a form of emergence at odds with Wilson's
"philosophy". So this "debate" over reductionism is highly relevant and
top thinkers in evolutionary biology use it to make their points either
for, against, or somewhere in between. In other words, this "battle"
could result eventually in sweeping academic changes. In some cases it
already has. That in my view is dangerous. Gould remarked how we are in
the electronic age and how he couldn't speak to the next millenium but
he acknowledged, given the limited resources of departments, the
humanities and social sciences could be eliminated. He points out,
however, this would not be a result of any real battle between the
social sciences-humanities and the natural sciences but rather
political forces conspiring to make such changes. I think Wilson is
insincere. I don't think he is interested in "consilience" at all. All
of his mumbo jumbo masks this. What he and his ilk are really
interested in are eliminating many of the social sciences and
humanities. Why? Because currently our knowledge of the natural
sciences doesn't allow us to "subsume" the social sciences and
humanities. Wilson is an eliminationist. His term "consilience" is a
euphemism. This man is held up as an icon when at the very least as its
pertains to this he should be severely criticized. And he has been but
it hasn't effected his status. That is because he really does have the
side of the Establishment. Eldredge and Gould, although important
thinkers, are painted as left wing weenies. Wilson represents the
status quo and is the imperial Grand Wizard of biology. He is getting
old now and will be leaving us but his legacy will likely be marred.

I'm sure Wilson would appreciate your comments. Beware, his
"muddleheadedness" may
reveal an ulterior motive. And even if it doesn't beware.


.

Relevant Pages