schleyer's review against another edition
3.0
Considering that I agree with its empiricist conclusions, I found the arguments pretty uninspired. In particular, all the examples of how one might analyze the arts or complex social issues from a “scientist” standpoint were totally rudimentary and superficial. And for a book that speaks out against tribalism, it has a pretty tribal Eurocentric vibe, especially with his snide remarks against gender or racial studies. I like Wilson’s other, more focused works much better.
holodoxa's review against another edition
5.0
Consilience is a term coined by E. O. Wilson to describe the phenomenon of different scientific fields coming together to provide a more complete understanding of a particular phenomenon. In some ways, it is also a recognition that the project of science is unified. In other words, it's the idea that different fields of science can converge to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the world around us. Science often uses reductive approaches to ascertain truth. Wilson's idea prod science toward a synthetic approach.
Wilson believed that this convergence of knowledge was essential for understanding the complexity of the natural world, and that by working together, different fields of science could provide a more complete picture of the world than any one field could on its own. For example, by combining the findings of biology, chemistry, physics, and other fields, we can better understand the mechanisms of evolution and how life has evolved on Earth. By combining genetics, anthropology, geography, and paleontology, we've have learned an enormous amount about the history of the human species (See David Reich's Who We Are And How We Got Here).
In his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Wilson argues that the pursuit of consilience is essential for making progress in science and for gaining a deeper understanding of the world around us. He also argues that the pursuit of consilience should be at the heart of all scientific endeavors, and that scientists should work together across disciplines to achieve this goal.
Consilience is a high impact work that prophesied many of the intellectual developments of the future (now our present) and will likely continue to be prescient on developments that have yet to come to pass (but are now clearly germinating). It is a wide-ranging and intriguing book that also contains some outdated figures and errant speculation. However, I don't think we should penalize this type of thing when it is done rigorous and carefully. This is exactly what E. O. Wilson did.
E. O. Wilson is a towering figure in the history of science, whose influence and importance is hard to overstate. I think many can benefit from reading more of his work.
*I may return to this review to address some of Wilson's ideas, arguments, speculations more directly and in detail.
Wilson believed that this convergence of knowledge was essential for understanding the complexity of the natural world, and that by working together, different fields of science could provide a more complete picture of the world than any one field could on its own. For example, by combining the findings of biology, chemistry, physics, and other fields, we can better understand the mechanisms of evolution and how life has evolved on Earth. By combining genetics, anthropology, geography, and paleontology, we've have learned an enormous amount about the history of the human species (See David Reich's Who We Are And How We Got Here).
In his book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Wilson argues that the pursuit of consilience is essential for making progress in science and for gaining a deeper understanding of the world around us. He also argues that the pursuit of consilience should be at the heart of all scientific endeavors, and that scientists should work together across disciplines to achieve this goal.
Consilience is a high impact work that prophesied many of the intellectual developments of the future (now our present) and will likely continue to be prescient on developments that have yet to come to pass (but are now clearly germinating). It is a wide-ranging and intriguing book that also contains some outdated figures and errant speculation. However, I don't think we should penalize this type of thing when it is done rigorous and carefully. This is exactly what E. O. Wilson did.
E. O. Wilson is a towering figure in the history of science, whose influence and importance is hard to overstate. I think many can benefit from reading more of his work.
*I may return to this review to address some of Wilson's ideas, arguments, speculations more directly and in detail.
sunday_evening6's review against another edition
3.0
Read for class, at some times a little too science-y for me but still fairly easy to understand. I like Wilson’s writing style as well.
miklosha's review against another edition
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.
sunburial's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
Truly an expansive piece of work that took me much longer to finish reading than I would normally like to admit. Covered the entirety of the sciences in a relatively short period of time with extremely dense argument made across all chapters. The end petered off a little bit due to repetitive argument making around the humanities but otherwise any complex systems thinker with a deeply vested interest in watching science reconcile itself with nature should read this book.