1
Maury Seldin’s notes for Consilience, Part I
Consilience Presentation at Books and Ideas, November 19, 2002
The Author: Edward O. Wilson
Edward O. Wilson is, according to Time magazine, one of America’s twenty-five most
influential people of the 20th century. He won the Pulitzer Prize twice: once for On
Human Nature., then for The Ants. Some colleagues consider him the most important
biologist since Charles Darwin. He is a pioneer in sociobiology and diversity and argues
for the fundamental unity of knowledge, which is what the book, Concilience is about.
Some addition background is as follows: His doctorate is in biology from Harvard where
he taught for four decades. His rank was Pellegrino University Research Professor. Also,
at Harvard, he was Curator in Entomology of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
And, he has received numerous honors and awards in addition to the two Pulitzer Prizes
mentioned.
The Book
The book, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, argues for the fundamental unity of all
knowledge. The idea is that, “everything in our world is organized in terms of a small
number of fundamental natural laws that comprise the principles underlying every branch
of learning.”
The word, “Concilience” goes back to the 19th century. It was used by philosophers of
science. It refers to the connection of different disciplines through shared basic laws.
Thus, the concept is uniting knowledge at a fundamental level. A wide range of
disciplines are discussed in the book; including biology, anthropology, psychology,
religion, philosophy and the arts. The key, as I see it, is that the commonality of natural
laws extends from the physical and natural sciences to the humanities and the social
sciences.
The Ionian Enchantment
The title of the opening chapter, “The Ionian Enchantment,” refers to a belief in the
unity of the sciences. That is, a conviction, “that the world is orderly and can be
explained by a small number of natural laws.” [pp.4-5]
It is an expression coined by the physicist and historian Gerald Holton. The roots of the
belief go back to a philosopher of the sixth century B.C.E., Thales of Milietus, in Ionia.
Thales’ belief that all matter ultimately consists of water is “often cited as an example of
how far astray early Greek speculation could wander, [however the real significance of
his thought] is the metaphysics it expressed about the material basis of the world and the
unity of nature.”
2
Wilson’s “Ionian Enchantment” began with a reading of Systematics and the Origin of
the Species by Ernst Mayr, published in 1942. {read text, p. 4}The book united the 19th
century Darwinian theory of evolution with modern genetics. It gave a theoretical
structure to natural history.
“Einstein, the architect of grand unification of physics, was Ionian to the core. That
vision was his greatest strength.” So writes Wilson in his development of the explanation
that modern physics has focused on the unification of the forces of nature. He also
writes, “But the spell of the Enchantment extends to other fields of science as well, and
in the minds of a few it reaches beyond into the social sciences, and still further, as I will
explain later, to touch the humanities.”
Thus, the opening chapter, among other things, serves as a preface introducing the series
of chapters that ranges from the natural sciences to the arts, with chapters on the mind,
social sciences, and ethics and religion. {see table of contents}
However, the opening chapter concludes with a sharing of some personal philosophy. He
writes,
“…people must belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human spirit to make
ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have a story to tell about where
we came from, and why we are here.” When I read that, Tolstoy’s The Death of
Ivan Ilyich came to mind.
The Great Branches of Learning
The second chapter is titled, “The Great Branches of Learning.” It, along with the first
chapter, and perhaps the third, provides the introduction to the chapters that discuss
consilience with a focus on disciplines or areas of knowledge.
The chapter opens as follows: “You will see at once why I believe that the Enlightenment
thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries got it mostly right the first time.”
[p8] {Read the paragraph- ending with natural sciences}
The thrust is in the sentence, “The greatest enterprise of the mind has always been and
will always be the attempted linkage of the sciences and the humanities.” The diagnosis
is, “The ongoing fragmentation of knowledge and resulting chaos in philosophy are not
reflections of the real world but artifacts of scholarship.”
The chapter is brief. The point is made that, “The belief in the possibility of consilience
beyond science and across the great branches of learning is not yet science.
It is a metaphysical world view, and a minority one at that, shared by only a few
scientists and philosophers.” [p.9] {Possibly read paragraph.}
3
Although he is not prepared to attempt a proof of the interdisciplinary application across
the social sciences and humanities, most of the chapter develops an example dealing with
environmental policy, ethics, social science, and biology.
[Interestingly enough this is relevant to Tom Pickard’s Books and Ideas
discussion of the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomberg on October 8.]
Wilson makes the point that most real world problems are at the point where the disciples
involved are most closely intertwined. And, that this is where we are least equipped to
deal with them. He points out that there is an increase in shifting domains to hybrids.
Concilience is implicit in this melding of disciplines.
Wilson doesn’t say so, not as far as I can see, but it is my professional opinion that the
progress that is made may well comes from a top down rather than a bottom up method.
That means that as we get more interdisciplinary studies we reconcile the disciplines and
identify commonality in principles and build toward consilience from the top down.
There may be progress from the bottom up, but that requires the identification of
principles and the exploration of wider application. That is tougher, but Newton did it
when the apple fell on his head. Perhaps we will have more on this later, especially in
chapter 4.
Wilson sees the unification agenda as important for improving decisions. He advocates
curriculum reform in colleges and universities so that, “Every college student should be
able to answer the following question: What is the relation between science and
humanities, and how is that important for human welfare?” [p.13]
The importance is summarized as follows: “Most of the issues that vex humanity daily –
ethnic conflict, arms escalation, over population, abortion, environment, endemic poverty,
to cite several most persistently before us–cannot be solved without integrating knowledge
from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities.” [p. 13]
The criticism is,“…the vast majority of our political leaders are trained exclusively in the
social sciences and humanities, and have little knowledge of the natural sciences. The
same is true of the public intellectuals, the columnists , the media interrogators, and think
tank gurus. The best of their analyses are careful and responsible, and sometimes correct,
but the substantive base of their wisdom is fragmented and lopsided.”
His conclusion is “A balanced perspective cannot be acquired by studying disciplines in
pieces but through pursuit of the Concilience among them.” [p.14] He continues, “Such
unification will come hard. But I think it is inevitable.” The great progress on the road
seems to be with the Enlightenment. The third chapter is titled, “The Enlightenment.”
The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment of the 17th century was focused on making progress by the use of
reason. That use of reason came through the advancements in the natural, physical, and
social sciences.
4
The scientific revolution that started in the century preceding the Enlightenment brought
dramatic progress to the quality of life in Western civilization. More important than the
technology, at least in my view, is the freedom brought about by the Enlightenment.
People, today, think about things differently than did people of a few centuries ago. This
thought is grounded in the scientific revolution. It has migrated from the physical
sciences to the social sciences.
This migration is noted in Wilson’s opening to the third chapter, to wit,
“The dream of intellectual unity first came to full flower in the original
Enlightenment, an Icarian flight of the mind that spanned the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. A vision of secular knowledge in the service of human
rights and human progress, it was the West’s greatest contribution to civilization.
It launched the modern era for the whole world: we are all its legatees. Then it
failed.”
The start of the second paragraph asserts failure of the Enlightenment when its ideas no
longer dominate. Wilson writes that the essential nature of the Enlightenment and that
the weakness that brought it down can be said to be wrapped up in the life of the
Marquis de Condorcet “Science was the engine of the Enlightenment...” It provided an
organization of the body of knowledge utilizing laws that dealt “..with entities that can be
measured and arranged in hierarchies…”
Among the scientific achievements that were the precursors to the Enlightenment were
the pioneer applications of mathematics to the social sciences. Condorocet’s work in this
area was a distant forerunner to current decision theory. It was not only the scientific
developments that made progress possible, it was the applications to social change.
Although Condorcet’s major scientific work was his “Essay on the Application of the
Probability of Major Decisions (1785),” his most relevant work for our discussion is his
philosophical work, “Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind
(1795).” He wrote that while in hiding since he was extending the world of reason to
social affairs and that ran up against some intolerant leadership.
To quote Wilson, “The French Revolution drew its intellectual strength from men and
women like Condorcet. It was readied by growth of educational opportunity and then fired
by the idea of universal rights of man. Yet as the Enlightenment seemed about to achieve
this by means of political fruition in Europe, something went terribly wrong.” [p.16]
Wilson goes on the explain that Rousseau’s “Social Contract” of thirty years earlier while
inspiring the later slogan of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” also “invented the
abstraction of ‘general will’ to achieve these goals. …Those who do not conform to the
general will, Rousseau continued, are deviants subject to necessary force by the
assembly. There is no other way to achieve a truly egalitarian democracy and thus break
humanity out of the chains that everywhere bind it.” [p.16]
5
Wilson continues,
“Robespierre, leader of the Reign of Terror that overtook the Revolution in 1793,
grasped this logic all too well. He and his fellow Jacobins across France
implemented Rousseau’s necessary force to include summary condemnations and
executions for all those who opposed the new order….
“…Thus took form the easy cohabitation of egalitarian ideology and savage
coercion that was to plague the next two centuries…”
“…The decline of the Enlightenment was hastened not by just tyrants who used it
for justification but by rising and often valid intellectual opposition. Its dream of
a world made orderly and fulfilling by free intellect had seemed at first
indestructible, the instinctive goal of all men. Its creators, among the greatest
scholars since Plato and Aristotle, showed what the human mind can accomplish.
Isaiah Berlin, one of the most perceptive historians, praised them justly as
follows, ‘The intellectual power, honesty, lucidity courage, and disinterested love
of the truth of the most gifted thinkers of the eighteenth century remain to this day
without parallel. Their age is one of the best and most hopeful episodes in the life
of mankind.’ But they reached too far, and their best efforts were not enough to
create the sustained effort their vision foretold.” [pp 16-.17]
Had Rousseau spoken of general reason rather than general will, events may have
unfolded differently. Wilson puts the end of the Enlightenment as March 29, 1794, the
date of the death of the Marquis de Condorcet. The imposition of “the general will” had
left no room for reasonable differences.
These thoughts bring to mind The Hedgehog and the Fox as well as The Crooked Timber
of Humanity, both by Isaiah Berlin. Knowing the one big thing as a utopian view is not a
reasoned justification for an imposition on others who see things differently. The issue is
how to co-exist with different views, and that is what Isaiah Berlin speaks of with his
concept of plurality.
The relevance in all of this is in dealing with major issues of today. If we define the
issues restricting ourselves to one discipline, then the outcome is in that context.
However, if the problem is an interdisciplinary problem, then the analytical system needs
cognizance of the different perspectives.
The Wilson plea for Concilience is for a unification of disciplines, looking for the
principles common to all the disciplines The relevance here is that the scientific method
breakthrough of Francis Bacon, in the preceding century, set the stage for the
Enlightenment from the perspective of science. Bacon rejected the sharp separation of
disciplines prevailing since Aristotle and visualized a pyramid of knowledge, “with
natural history forming the base, physics above, and subsuming it, and metaphysics at the
peak..” [p.25]
Condorcet picked up on the idea of the cosmos being a combination of “entities that can
be measured and arranged in hierarchies.” And, he furthermore “…called for the
illumination of the moral and political sciences by the ‘torch of analysis.” [p. 24]
6
As noted, Condorcet applied the math of the physical sciences to the social sciences. He
thus led the way to the present day social science obsession with rigor. As I have noted
elsewhere, academics worship at the alter of rigor. Relevance takes second place because
the incentive system focuses on peer reviewed research in prestigious learned journals.
These journals are typically focused on discipline rather than issues. The issues may be
inter-disciplinary, but the academic structures are typically departmentalized by
discipline. Or, using the words of Edward O. Wilson from his Consilience: The Unity of
Knowledge, “Grants and honors are given in science for discoveries, not for scholarship
and wisdom….The same professionalism atomization afflicts the social sciences and
humanities.” [p.42] { I did adlib some discussion of these issues in Schools of Business.]
This organization of knowledge has afflicted us in the way we organize our programs and
pursue our discussions. The roots of change may be found in the Enlightenment that
started in the seventeenth century. As previously noted, it was then that Francis Bacon
“rejected the sharp divisions among disciplines prevailing since Aristotle.” [p.28]
It is time for a New Enlightenment, one in which relevance and rigor are teamed in the
analysis of issues using interdisciplinary techniques. Concilience would reveal the
principles common to the various disciplines. In the meantime, the paradigms need to be
blended. The ensuing chapters focus on specific areas of knowledge.
The Natural Sciences
Chapter 4 is titled, “The Natural Sciences.” It starts off by saying that, “… the faith of
the Enlightenment thinkers in science was justified.” He defines science as follows:
“Science is neither philosophy nor a belief system, it is a combination of mental
operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture
of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most
effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived.”
Using the examples of visible light and the human auditory range, Wilson makes the
point that the pre-scientific people had no basis of knowing reality beyond that which
they could experience by their senses. Science, with appropriate instruments, has enabled
us to better understand the system and know about light that we cannot see and sound
that we cannot hear.
Wilson explains that natural selection has given us the senses that we need and given
other creatures the senses that they need. We don’t have the same senses. It takes
science to understand theirs as well as ours.
He explains that natural science emerged as a product of history out of three conditions:
“The first was the boundless curiosity and creative drive of the best minds. The second
was the inborn power to abstract the essential qualities of the universe. [The third was]
‘…the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” [pp. 52-53]
7
The evolutionary explanation is summarized as follows:
“In the ultimate sense our brain and sensory system evolved as a biological
apparatus to preserve and multiply human genes. But they enable us to navigate
only through the tiny segment of the physical world whose mastery serves that
primal need. Instrumental science has removed the handicap. Still, science in its
fullness is much more than just the haphazard expansion of sensory capacity by
instruments. The other elements in its creative mix are classification of data and
their interpretation by theory. Together they compose the rational processing of
sensory experience enhanced by instrumentation.” [p 56]
Wilson continues with a discussion of the concept of theories noting that scientific
theories are the product of informed imagination that reaches out “…to predict the
existence of previously unsuspected phenomena. They generate hypotheses…” [p57]
He leads to the following: “Science…is the organized systematic enterprise that gathers
knowledge about the world and condenses knowledge into testable laws and principles..”
[p.58]
Ariadne’s Thread
Chapter 5, “Ariadne’s Thread,” starts with a metaphor that gives the chapter its name.
Ariadne, the love struck daughter of Crete’s King Midos, gave Theseus, whom she loves,
a ball of thread. Theseus unravels the thread as he makes his way through a labyrinth. He
is then able to retrace his steps. [Read from page 72.]
The point of the chapter is that in exploring the tree of knowledge, it is less difficult to go
from the branches back to the base than it is to go forward from the base to the branches.
This metaphor relates to the point that it is less difficult to go from biology back to
chemistry and physics than it is to go forward from physics and chemistry to biology.
The 32 page chapter has some really interesting examples from ants and dreams of
serpents. As you may recall from my introductory remarks, Wilson won Pulitzer Prizes
for two books. One was The Ants. The other, On Human Nature, is especial relevant in
the next chapter, “The Mind.” But, the thread of his work, from what I have been able to
discern, is to move our understanding of the world we live in, by the use of science,
through linking the understanding of the physical sciences to understanding the cognitive
science. He does not use the phrase “cognitive science.” Rather he refers to the mind.
[Read the first paragraph on page 103.]
The Mind
Chapter 6, “The Mind,” starts off as follows: “Belief in the intrinsic unity of knowledge –
the reality of the labyrinth – rides ultimately on the hypothesis is that every mental
process has a physical grounding and is consistent with the natural sciences. The mind is
extremely important to the consilience program for a reason both elementary and
disturbingly profound: Everything that we know and can ever know about existence is
8
created there.” That was the first paragraph. I’ll now read the next two paragraphs,
perhaps with some adlibs. [p105.]
The key points are: Understanding the brain requires science. Philosophy is knowledge
challenged in this matter. There has been a biological evolution of the brain. That
evolution focused on survival. In order to see more than survival, it takes knowledge
applied in a holistic paradigm. The best quality of knowledge is from science. Other
options included myth, self-deception, and ritual. I would add superstition and dogma as
lesser qualities of knowledge.
The human brain is the most complex object known in the universe. Of course it takes the
brain to know the brain. But, it was not designed or that purpose. As noted survival was
the purpose.
Over the last 200,000 years the average brain size quadrupled. It has the volume of about
two quarts. It weighs about three pounds. It was the seat of the higher functions that
grew most. So now we have taken control of the planet, more or less, be that desirable or
not. We are not doing very well with it, some might say.
[THIS IS WHERE THE PRESENTATION ENDED.
You may want to read the essay referred to, so I am
including the notes from the rest of the chapter.]
The concept of progress may mean moving toward a goal. It may also mean growth and
development, as in evolution. When I first read the following two sentences a couple or
few years ago, they inspired an essay. The sentences are from page 107. [READ]
The essay is entitled “Making Progress.” It speaks to fostering an interdisciplinary
approach, applications of knowledge, as in engineering, and
making a difference,
professionally. If interested the web site is hoyt.org. Click on Advanced Studies Institute,
then on the side bar scroll to ASI Newsletter inserts. It is from the Fall 2000 issue.
Wilson develops the point the mind is the brain at work. He writes that, “The brain and
its satellite glands have been probed to the point where no particular site remains that can
reasonably be supposed to harbor a nonphysical mind.” [p108]
He continues with his consilience theme, writing as follows: “As late as 1970 most
scientists thought the concept of mind a topic best left to philosophers. Now the issue has
been joined where it belongs, at the juncture of biology and psychology.”
This is a great segue to the next chapter, “From Genes to Culture.” But there is some
really interesting stuff in the rest of its chapter. Some of it relates to his earlier work, On
Human Nature, 1978, two decades earlier. Some of it relates to later chapters in the
Consilience book. He writes, [pages 125-126]
“What we call meaning is the linkage among neural networks created by the
spreading excitation that enlarges imagery and engages emotion. The competitive
selection among scenarios is what we call decision making. The outcome, in
9
terms of the match of the winning scenario to instinctive or learned favorable
states, sets the kind and intensity of subsequent emotion. The persistent form and
intensity of emotions is called mood.
The relevance of all of this, in my view, is that societal progress is a function of the
decisions we make. So we look to philosophy and science (natural science and social
science) to help us understand the system so as to be able to make better decisions.
A paragraph from Wilson’s earlier work, On Human Nature, sheds a lot of light. It is
[p75] “…A schema is a configuration within the brain, either inborn or learned, against
which the input of nerve cells is compared. The matching of the real and
expected patterns can have one or the other of several effects. The schema can
contribute to a person’s mental “set,” the screening out of certain details in favor
of others, so that the conscious mind perceives a certain part of the environment
more vividly than others and is likely to favor one kind of decision over another.
It can fill in details that are missing from the actual sensory input and create
a pattern in the mind that is not entirely present in reality. In this way the gestalt
of objects – the impression they give of being a square, a face, a tree, or whatever
– is aided by the taxonomic powers of the schemata.”
Elsewhere in the same book, page 55, Wilson writes,
“We have at last come to the key phrase: genetic determinism. On this
interpretation depends the entire relation between biology and the social
sciences.”
Then, later in the same book, page 199,
The search for values will then go beyond the utilitarian calculus of genetic
fitness. Although natural selection has been the prime mover, it works through a
cascade of decisions based on secondary values that have historically served as
the enabling mechanism for survival and reproductive success. These values are
defined to a large extent by our most intense emotions: enthusiasm and a
sharpening of the senses from exploration; exaltation from discovery; triumph in
battle and competitive sports; the restful satisfaction from an altruistic act well
and truly placed; the stirring of ethnic and national pride; the strength of family
ties; and the secure biophilic pleasure from the nearness of animals and growing
plants.”
Thus, as I see it, making progress is predicated on instilling values into the schema such
that the frame work of decision making has the suitable foundation. That is philosophy
and whatever else you want in the value system. Furthermore, we need better
understanding through the sciences, natural and social, in order to be able to forecast the
outcome of courses of action. The blending of disciplines is what consilience is about.
Others have approached it in different ways. Einstein attempted to “establish a unified
theory of the classical fields of gravitation and electromagnetism.” A description from
the web is as follows:
10
Unified Field Theory, in physics, a theory that proposes to unify the four known interactions, or
forces—the strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational forces—by a simple set of general
laws. Four distinct forces are known to control all the observed interactions in matter: gravitation,
electromagnetism, the strong force (a short-range force that holds atomic nuclei together), and
the weak force (the force responsible for slow nuclear processes, such as beta decay). The
attempts to develop a unified field theory are grounded in the belief that all physical phenomena
should ultimately be explainable by some underlying unity.
The unified theory approach has now been extended to the social sciences. description
from the web is as follows:
Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design by Nathan Shedroff
One of the most important skills for almost everyone to have in the next decade and beyond will
be those that allow us to create valuable, compelling, and empowering information and
experiences for others. To do this, we must learn existing ways of organizing and presenting data
and information and develop new ones. Whether our communication tools are traditional print
products, electronic products, broadcast programming, interactive experiences, or live
performances makes little difference. Nor does it matter if we are employing physical or electronic
devices or our own bodies and voices. The process of creating is roughly the same in any
medium. The processes involved in solving problems, responding to audiences, and
communicating to others are similar enough to consider them identical for the purposes of this
paper. These issues apply across all types of media and experiences, because they directly
address the phenomena of information overload, information anxiety, media literacy, media
immersion, and technological overload--all which need better solutions.
These approaches, as well as that of consilience are based on a bottom up approach of
seeking principles that apply to the different disciplines.
An alternative approach is to go top down. That is to blend disciplines. Among these
interdisciplinary approaches is that of cognitive science, which has been referred to as a
“gigantic melting pot where disciplinary boundaries no longer hold.” [p196, The Science
of the Mind.]
[This concludes my notes from the first six chapters.]
Maury Seldin’s notes for Consilience, Part II
Chapter 6, “The Mind,” is included in both Part I and Part II because in the first
session we covered only part of the chapter.
The Mind
Chapter 6, “The Mind,” starts off as follows: “Belief in the intrinsic unity of knowledge –
the reality of the labyrinth – rides ultimately on the hypothesis is that every mental
process has a physical grounding and is consistent with the natural sciences. The mind is
extremely important to the consilience program for a reason both elementary and
disturbingly profound: Everything that we know and can ever know about existence is
created there.” That was the first paragraph. I’ll now read the next two paragraphs,
perhaps with some adlibs. [p105.]
The key points are: Understanding the brain requires science. Philosophy is knowledge
challenged in this matter. There has been a biological evolution of the brain. That
evolution focused on survival. In order to see more than survival, it takes knowledge
applied in a holistic paradigm. The best quality of knowledge is from science. Other
options included myth, self-deception, and ritual. I would add superstition and dogma as
lesser qualities of knowledge.
The human brain is the most complex object known in the universe. Of course it takes the
brain to know the brain. But, it was not designed or that purpose. As noted survival was
the purpose.
Over the last 200,000 years the average brain size quadrupled. It has the volume of about
two quarts. It weighs about three pounds. It was the seat of the higher functions that
grew most. So now we have taken control of the planet, more or less, be that desirable or
not. We are not doing very well with it, some might say.
[This is where the presentation ended at the first session.]
The concept of progress may mean moving toward a goal. It may also mean growth and
development, as in evolution. When I first read the following two sentences a couple or
few years ago, they inspired an essay. The sentences are from page 107. [READ]
The essay is entitled “Making Progress.” It speaks to fostering an interdisciplinary
approach, applications of knowledge, as in engineering, and making a difference,
professionally. If interested the web site is hoyt.org. Click on Advanced Studies Institute,
then on the side bar scroll to ASI Newsletter inserts. It is from the Fall 2000 issue.
Wilson develops the point the mind is the brain at work. He writes that, “The brain and
its satellite glands have been probed to the point where no particular site remains that can
reasonably be supposed to harbor a nonphysical mind.” [p108]
He continues with his consilience theme, writing as follows: “As late as 1970 most
scientists thought the concept of mind a topic best left to philosophers. Now the issue has
been joined where it belongs, at the juncture of biology and psychology.”
This is a great segue to the next chapter, “From Genes to Culture.” But there is some
really interesting stuff in the rest of its chapter. Some of it relates to his earlier work, On
Human Nature, 1978, two decades earlier. Some of it relates to later chapters in the
Consilience book. He writes, [pages 125-126]
“What we call meaning is the linkage among neural networks created by the
spreading excitation that enlarges imagery and engages emotion. The competitive
selection among scenarios is what we call decision making. The outcome, in
terms of the match of the winning scenario to instinctive or learned favorable
states, sets the kind and intensity of subsequent emotion. The persistent form and
intensity of emotions is called mood.
The relevance of all of this, in my view, is that societal progress is a function of the
decisions we make. So we look to philosophy and science (natural science and social
science) to help us understand the system so as to be able to make better decisions.
A paragraph from Wilson’s earlier work, On Human Nature, sheds a lot of light. It is
[p75] “…A schema is a configuration within the brain, either inborn or learned, against
which the input of nerve cells is compared. The matching of the real and
expected patterns can have one or the other of several effects. The schema can
contribute to a person’s mental “set,” the screening out of certain details in favor
of others, so that the conscious mind perceives a certain part of the environment
more vividly than others and is likely to favor one kind of decision over another.
It can fill in details that are missing from the actual sensory input and create
a pattern in the mind that is not entirely present in reality. In this way the gestalt
of objects – the impression they give of being a square, a face, a tree, or whatever
– is aided by the taxonomic powers of the schemata.”
Elsewhere in the same book, page 55, Wilson writes,
“We have at last come to the key phrase: genetic determinism. On this
interpretation depends the entire relation between biology and the social
sciences.”
Then, later in the same book, page 199,
The search for values will then go beyond the utilitarian calculus of genetic
fitness. Although natural selection has been the prime mover, it works through a
cascade of decisions based on secondary values that have historically served as
the enabling mechanism for survival and reproductive success. These values are
defined to a large extent by our most intense emotions: enthusiasm and a
sharpening of the senses from exploration; exaltation from discovery; triumph in
battle and competitive sports; the restful satisfaction from an altruistic act well
and truly placed; the stirring of ethnic and national pride; the strength of family
ties; and the secure biophilic pleasure from the nearness of animals and growing
plants.”
Thus, as I see it, making progress is predicated on instilling values into the schema such
that the frame work of decision making has the suitable foundation. That is philosophy
and whatever else you want in the value system. Furthermore, we need better
understanding through the sciences, natural and social, in order to be able to forecast the
outcome of courses of action. The blending of disciplines is what consilience is about.
Others have approached it in different ways. Einstein attempted to “establish a unified
theory of the classical fields of gravitation and electromagnetism.” A description from
the web is as follows:
Unified Field Theory, in physics, a theory that proposes to unify the four known
interactions, or forces—the strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational forces—by a
simple set of general laws. Four distinct forces are known to control all the observed
interactions in matter: gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong force (a short-range force
that holds atomic nuclei together), and the weak force (the force responsible for slow
nuclear processes, such as beta decay). The attempts to develop a unified field theory
are grounded in the belief that all physical phenomena should ultimately be explainable
by some underlying unity.
The unified theory approach has now been extended to the social sciences. A description
from the web is as follows:
Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design by Nathan Shedroff
One of the most important skills for almost everyone to have in the next decade and
beyond will be those that allow us to create valuable, compelling, and empowering
information and experiences for others. To do this, we must learn existing ways of
organizing and presenting data and information and develop new ones. Whether our
communication tools are traditional print products, electronic products, broadcast
programming, interactive experiences, or live performances makes little difference. Nor
does it matter if we are employing physical or electronic devices or our own bodies and
voices. The process of creating is roughly the same in any medium. The processes
involved in solving problems, responding to audiences, and communicating to others are
similar enough to consider them identical for the purposes of this paper. These issues
apply across all types of media and experiences, because they directly address the
phenomena of information overload, information anxiety, media literacy, media
immersion, and technological overload--all which need better solutions.
These approaches, as well as that of consilience are based on a bottom up approach of
seeking principles that apply to the different disciplines.
An alternative approach is to go top down. That is to blend disciplines. Among these
interdisciplinary approaches is that of cognitive science, which has been referred to as a
“gigantic melting pot where disciplinary boundaries no longer hold.” [p196, The Science
of the Mind.]
From Genes to Culture
According to Wilson, in his opening paragraph of Chapter 7, “From Genes to Culture,”
“Yet, I think it fair to say that enough is known to justify confidence
in the principal of universal rational consilience across the natural sciences.”
He continues in the second paragraph, [p. 136]
“The explanatory network now touches the edge of culture itself. It has reached
the boundary that separates the natural sciences on one side from the humanities
and humanistic social sciences on the other.”
Wilson describes this polarization of the natural sciences on the one hand and the
humanities and humanistic social sciences on the other, as follows; [p137] “Public
intellectuals [ READ FROM BOOK]…. lack a common language.”
The next paragraph, or really the first half of it, outlines his approach to uniting the
natural sciences and the humanities and humanistic social sciences. [read the paragraph
or] Wilson writes that rather than viewing “…the boundary between the scientific and
literary cultures as a territorial line…[it would be more fruitful to view it as] ….a broad
and mostly unexplored terrain awaiting cooperative entry from both sides.”
He says it is the “misunderstandings arise from ignorance of the terrain, not from a
fundamental difference in mentality.” My comment is that there may be different
schemas. He continues with the question on how biology and culture interact. And, that
is what the rest of the chapter deals with.
The second part of the paragraph, justifiably a paragraph on its own, refers to the species
as a whole and the different societies. It can be read in two ways; one as part of the same
paragraph. The other way of reading it is as the great problem of our time, as in
terrorists and Islam. Consider the Bernard Lewis book, What Went Wrong? Western
Impact and Middle East Response.
There is a proposal for a “World Classics” interest group. The relevance of Consilience to
the Bernard Lewis book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle East Response,
is a great topic.
The answer to the question on the interaction of biology and culture is summarized on
page 138 and 139 in the italicized paragraphs. It is a reiterative individual and communal
mind process, with the survival of the fittest. Each depends on the other. [perhaps read
the paragraphs] The natural selection is further discussed on page 141. More detail is in
the chapter. A summary of that detail is on page 171.
The point is that genes and culture need to be understood together, rather than simply in
the tradition of separate disciplines. Wilson’s voice is not alone in attempting to break
down the barriers between disciplines. [Page 231 of Best American Essays and inserts]
The Fitness of Human Nature
The next chapter, Chapter 8, “The Fitness of Human Nature,” focuses on epigenetic rule.
Epigenetic rules are hereditary regularities. [p.171] They relate to the “regularities of
sensory perception and mental development that animate and channel the acquisition of
culture.” Think of them as rules of thumb of acquisition of culture.
Human nature is the “epigenetic rules that bias cultural evolution in one direction as
opposed to another, and thus connect the genes to culture.” [p 178] Thus, human nature
may be considered to be the tendencies in our behavior that have evolved from heredity
and culture.
Since my interests lie in the application of knowledge, and, I believe we develop
knowledge because at some time it is going to have an application, I will mention a few
related quotes from several favorite books. They all relate to consilience, the unity of
knowledge.
First is Edward O. Wilson’s book On Human Nature. [p.5] “…morality evolves as
instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon be in a position to investigate the
very origin and meaning of human values, from which all ethical pronouncements and
much of political practice flow.” “Philosophers themselves, most whom lack an
evolutionary perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine the
precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences and not their origins.”
Back to the morality evolves as instinct. The phrase Wilson wrote that precedes it is,
“…innate sensors and motivators in the brain that deeply and unconsciously affect our
ethical premises; from these roots, morality evolved as instinct.”
On the next page he writes, “Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are at the very core of
humanity.”…then, in the same paragraph, “..we must consciously choose among the
alternative emotional guides that we have inherited.”
The next paragraph brings in the consilience. He writes, “The only way to forward is to
study human nature as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the natural
sciences with the social sciences and humanities.” [p.6]
The next book is another Pulitzer Prize winner, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of
Human Societies,” by Jared Diamond. The quote sums up the book. It is “History
followed different courses for different people because of differences among peoples’
environments, not because of biological differences among the people themselves.”
[p.25]
The third book deals with the great problem of our age. The book is Bernard Lewis’s
What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response.” The quote is the
final paragraph of the book. It is,
“If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide
bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape
from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and
oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination—perhaps
from a new Europe reverting to old ways, perhaps from a resurgent Russia,
perhaps from some expanding superpower in the East. But if they can abandon
grievance and victimhood, settle their differences, and join their talents, energies,
and resources in a common creative endeavor, they can once again make the
Middle East, in modern times as it was in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, a
major center of civilization. For the time being, the choice is theirs.”
Lewis is an historian specializing on Islam. He traced, from an historical
perspective the history of Islam relative to the western world in the arena of
human achievement, i.e., progress. It is a foundation timber for us to build our
policy on.
Wilson sees the issues in the context of the epigenetic rules, the gene-culture
evolution. He writes, “The search for human nature can be viewed as the
archeology of epigenetic rules.” [p.179]
The Social Sciences
The search for human nature is, in essence a search for the prize of understanding human
behavior. That understanding is necessary for predictive ability. And the predictive
ability is important for making choices. This brings us to “The Social Sciences, Chapter
9.”
The indictment reads as follows: [p.197]“People expect…
their command”
read the two paragraphs
The point that social sciences need the natural sciences in order to better predict the out
come of alternative courses of actions is developed with reference to various disciplines.
He writes, “In short, social sciences as a whole have paid little attention to the
foundations of human nature, and have almost no interesting its deep origins. [p.200]
Interestingly enough, he writes in the same paragraph, “The theorists have consistently
misjudged Muslim fundamentalism, which is religion inflamed by ethnicity.”
That was written before the Lewis book. But, note the relevance to out earlier side trips.
[Another side trip page 201]
A summation of the criticism is, “But they have yet crafted a web of causal explanation
that successfully cuts down through the levels of organization from society to mind and
brain. Failing to probe this far, they lack what may be called scientific theory. [p.205]
Given time, there would be a lot to develop. Discipline by discipline. Economics would
be the most fruitful. [p.220]
Relevance and rigor, middle of page and Hoyt web site. Behavioral economics.
The Arts and Their Interpretation
The next chapter, 10, “The Arts and Their Interpretation,” is much more difficult to
handle. The key sentence on the arts appears in the chapter on “The Mind.” [p.13] It is,
“In other words, science explains feeling, while art transmits it.”
The thrust of the chapter is on interpretation of the arts. The thesis is that art evolves
with epigenetic rules. The consilience is therefore in interpretation of those forces that
arise from human nature. The key paragraph is on page 233.
In short, we can understand evolution of art better through consilience, but as for art
itself, we simply seek to receive the transmission of feeling. I am sure there are other
views, but this is what I have thus far been able to make of the chapter, and I would
welcome further enlightenment.
Ethics and Religion
The relevance of consilience in the next chapter, 11, “Ethics and Religion,” is less
difficult to grasp. The case is stated in the opening two paragraphs, page 260. [read]
In short, the issue is, do moral values come from humans alone, or are they transcendent?
We cannot resolve that issue by pure logic, just make your choice. But the choice of
transcendental does not necessarily imply belief in God, although such belief is an option
consistent with such a choice.
Wilson writes, In short, transcendentalism is fundamentally the same whether God is
invoked or not.” [p.261] [read next paragraph] powerful paragraph]
In discussing the transcendent view as compared to the empiricist view, Wilson note that
since the transcendent view has been so perverted (one might say abused), we might do
well to take empiricism more seriously. [Read three paragraphs on page 262.]
The chapter is fascinating, but justifies a session all its own.
To What End?
The final chapter, “To What End?” may be read in a variety of ways, or from a variety of
perspectives. Indeed, that applies to a lot of the text. But, I think especially to the final
chapter.
Much of the chapter is devoted to genetic engineering and environmental issues. But, it
leads to the holding capacity of the planet and the merits of biodiversity.
My calling forth a point counterpoint concept reminds me of the discussion last month
when Tom Pickard acquainted us with Bjorn Lomberg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The last chapter sounds as though it is a lead in to Wilson’s new book, The Future of Life.
Not having read either of those two books, I am not prepared to compare the substantive
arguments.
There is one point which I would like to relate. It is on page 319. It speaks to
interdisciplinary approach of economics, and I support the advocacy of that approach.
[Read the paragraph]
Wilson, in this final chapter, is back to one of my favorite topic, the Enlightenment.
He writes, [p.325] The legacy of the Enlightenment… [Read 3 paragraphs] It seems to
me that he is saying we can, through better understanding, choose wisely. We should not
surrender to the complexity. We need to develop and rely on our ethics. It is necessary
for survival, and implicitly it is best approached by consilience.
The following is the transmission note.
Attached is a file, in Word, titled “Maury Notes Part II.” It contains my notes on the
last seven of the twelve chapters of the book. Since we did not get very far into Chapter
6, “The Mind,” I have included the notes for the entire chapter in both Part I and Part II.
Rosemary has informed me that the regular spots of December 10 and 17 are open, and
that we may use them for follow on discussions if we so desire. There may be some
areas that you wish to explore in greater depths, particularly in applications of concepts.
Also, some of you may want to prepare vignettes of a few to ten or so minutes, or even
longer presentations. If so, please let me know of your interest, preferably before the
meeting. In any event we are scheduled to meet December 10 at which time I will start
the discussion with a brief essay responding to Rosemary’s question of what are the
fundamental laws applicable to all disciplines.
The material presented is a narrative with references to page numbers. In the case of very
long passages, I read directly from the text. Sometimes my notes provide an
interpretation. For some of it would be necessary to the book itself.
If you have a problem with down loading Word. Send me an E-mail and I will cut and
paste it in to a return E-mail.