- Paperback: 384 pages
- Publisher: Vintage; Reprint edition (March 30, 1999)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 067976867X
- ISBN-13: 978-0679768678
- Product Dimensions: 5.2 x 0.7 x 8 inches
- Shipping Weight: 5.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 165 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #78,139 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge Reprint Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and Amazon Prime.
If you're a seller, Fulfillment by Amazon can help you increase your sales. We invite you to learn more about Fulfillment by Amazon .
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
"A dazzling journey across the sciences and humanities in search of deep laws to unite them." —The Wall Street Journal
"An original work of synthesis . . . a program of unrivalled ambition: to unify all the major branches of knowledge—sociology, economics, the arts and religion—under the banner of science." —The New York Times
"As elegant in its prose as it is rich in its ideas . . . a book of immense importance." —Atlanta Journal & Constitution
"Edward O. Wilson is a hero. . . he has made landmark scientific discoveries and has a writing style to die for. . . . A complex and nuanced argument." —Boston Globe
"One of the clearest and most dedicated popularizers of science since T. H. Huxley. . . . Mr. Wilson can do the science and the prose." —Time
"An excellent book. Wilson provides superb overviews of Western intellectual history and the current state of understanding in many academic disciplines." — Slate
"The Renaissance scholar still lives. . . . A sensitive, wide-ranging mind discoursing beautifully. . . . Wilson's buoyant intellectual courage is bracing." —Seattle Weekly
From the Inside Flap
ling journey across the sciences and humanities in search of deep laws to unite them." --The Wall Street Journal
One of our greatest living scientists--and the winner of two Pulitzer Prizes for On Human Nature and The Ants--gives us a work of visionary importance that may be the crowning achievement of his career. In Consilience (a word that originally meant "jumping together"), Edward O. Wilson renews the Enlightenment's search for a unified theory of knowledge in disciplines that range from physics to biology, the social sciences and the humanities.
Using the natural sciences as his model, Wilson forges dramatic links between fields. He explores the chemistry of the mind and the genetic bases of culture. He postulates the biological principles underlying works of art from cave-drawings to Lolita. Presenting the latest findings in prose of wonderful clarity and oratorical eloquence, and synthesizi
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
As Wilson points out, the unity of all knowledge is at this time more metaphysical yearning than scientific fact. We've barely begun to map genes to specific behaviors; we're only starting to understand how the brain and body generate a mind; and hard historical data about how we evolved into this particular configuration is spotty at best. The endeavor seems to be about where America was in 1700: a few promising toeholds on the continent, large gaps between them, and vast tracts of unexplored territory.
Wilson wants to guide us through the wilderness, and, like many prophets, he takes his share of abuse. The book seems to have become a litmus test for how willing people are to let the natural sciences encroach on other fields of intellectual endeavor, and several reviews posted here offer pugnacious critiques of the limits to Wilson's approach. Some of the significant objections to his brand of consilience are:
Flawed methods. The skill of good science is to pose questions in ways that make answers possible, which is to effectively reduce the complexities of the world to problems that can be solved. While the scientific method has led to huge advances in understanding the natural world, it's questionable whether philosophy, art, religion or day-to- day living will yield up their secrets through this process. Many respected thinkers argue that applying scientific reductionism to the complexities of human existence leads us down false and constraining paths. Real progress comes when we're rigorous but not reductive in our search for truth.
A bloodless humanism. Both the Greeks and the Christians proposed to fix human flaws by attempting to eliminate in people what made them human in the first place. Wilson's scientific humanism, which would have us go forward based on empirical knowledge and a disinterested search for truth, is another tautological ascent. People recently descended from Paleolithic tribes don't find it congenial to think like world-class scientists. In fact, whenever rationalist thought gains political ascendancy, large masses of humanity feel compelled to daub themselves with blue mud and dance around the campfire. Scientists who try to take away our funk and magic will get tossed on the campfire too.
Political pitfalls. Suppose the linchpin activity of Wilson's consilience - identifying which genes trigger a specific behavioral response - actually gets accomplished. Do we then abdicate human agency to the keepers of the genetic code? Do molecular biologists become the new shamans, and scientific humanism the new orthodoxy? As Isaiah Berlin and others have pointed out, when grand schemas are operating, the rights of individuals tend to get trampled. Communism and Christianity should have taught us to beware the bearers of the One Big Truth.
On the other hand, an infusion of empiricism may damp down the need for ritual, magic and blood sacrifice that still drives so much of human behavior. Scientific humanism, resting on firmer intellectual foundations that either religion or political science, may prove to be wiser and more far seeing in the administration of human affairs. If we have more knowledge about the genetic basis of our humanity, maybe we'll have a greater ability to steer our cultures in positive directions.
Wilson's scheme for linking the social sciences and the arts to the natural sciences may not be useful or possible in all its details. Maybe group behaviors will prove too complex to tie to specific genes, or we won't want to make PET scans of our brain while we read a poem or listen to a symphony. But he does articulate several urgent and important tasks that can move humanity forward.
-using our DNA to flag or cure disease. This will also spur political acceptance of scientific values because of the tangible benefits being delivered.
-decoding the physical basis of the embodied mind, so we better understand how thoughts and emotions drive our behaviors.
-deciphering the social and psychological foundations of the religious impulse so we can construct empirical ethical systems and finally pull free from the intellectual muck of primitive monotheism.
Wilson deserves credit for being bold and provocative in his thinking, for brilliantly condensing so much science, history and philosophy into such a brief space, and for presenting his arguments in lucid sentences that rise on occasion to the level of poetry. While people may pick at the particulars, many of us can resonate to his central exhortation. Let's use the tools of science to gain more control over our future than intuition, superstition, demagoguery, magical thinking, and theism have given us over our past.
But Consilience is more than just a popular science book. It is a call for a new kind of science - a unified discipline, a thread of knowledge leading from physics, through the key element of biological evolution, to the social sciences and even the humanities, art, religion, and the ecology.
In a sense, Consilience is very similar to Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Both books deal with a huge array of items, also categorized as a chain leading from Physics to Ethics (and, in Dennet's case to God - or to the inexsistence of God. Wilson, more modest, stops at religion, and leaves a place for some sort of a deity in his cosmology). Ultimately, although Wilson's prose is superior, and some of his ideas are wonderful (especially early in the book. I loved the suggestion that Logical Positivism can be saved through biological information on how the brain works. There is a paradox there, but it is an approach to the question I never considered), Dennet's book is more considered and is the better of the two.
The reason for that is, as a scientific program, rather than as an ideology, Consilience doesn't hold water. First, the term is incredibly unclear. Sometimes, in its strong form, Consilience really is a call for one science, explaining a phenomena in all levels, from the human action to the evolutionary explanation for this phenomena, and finally to the physics behind the biology.
But one is struck by how little Wilson actually explains through this. His examples are remarkably minor. He can trace dreaming about Snakes to old world primates innate fear, and he explains which color words will be more frequant then others (black and white tend to be higher up the hirarchy then Orange - hmm), but no explanation to any discrete historical event is ever offered. Does Consilience, in this strong regard, has anything to say about Keyensian economics? Can you trace the fall of the Weimar republic back to physics? Do we understand Hitchcock's movies better through an evolutionary perspective on human motives like greed and love? I don't think so.
Then, sometimes consilience means only that different disciplines should engage in dialogue. There's nothing objectionable in that, but it is far from tearing down the discipline barriers. And it is constantly done anyway - the latest winner of the Noble price in economics won it for work in psychology.
Wilson's Consilience keeps switching between these two extremes. Part of the problem, in my view, is that Wilson over emphasizes the links between the different levels of explanation. In particular, in the 'nature vs. nurture', debate, Wilson clearly believes everything is in the genes.
Wilson constantly denies that he believes in genetic determinism. Strictly speaking, that is true, but if Wilson closes a door by allowing for culture, he opens a window by talking about predisposition - human culture works based on preexisting biological directions ("epigenetic rules") - it intensifies and elaborates them, but rarely or never ignores them. That's an interesting twist, but it amounts to little but a longer road to the same destination.
Ultimately, the greatest problem I had with Consilience is that it isn't pragmatic. Yes, Unity is a wonderful thing (and despite my reservations, I tend to agree to that), but how do we get there? Wilson offers very little concrete steps. At the end, Consilience leaves you with a vivid description of the impending ecologic crisis, and a warm fuzzy feeling that consilience can solve it - but with very little about how consilience will be achieved, or indeed, what it means exactly.
I don't want to end my review in such a sour note. Wilson's prose is powerful, and he is a fascinating thinker. Even if I don't agree with him, the vision is provocative and fascinating, and in a sense, that is the greatest compliment possible.
Most recent customer reviews
How perceptive of her that she thought I would enjoy it.Read more