On “The Natural Sciences” in Consilience by Edward O. Wilson
How does one take experience myth, feeling, and subjective “reality,” while still practicing science in a way that does not deny the significance of these experiences? I am strong sense this is possible to do, and I wish that E.O. Wilson had given more effort to resolving this problem in the chapter. I think that “The Natural Sciences” got people so riled up in class discussion because it can seem that E.O. Wilson’s declaration that creation myths have been “…wrong. Always wrong,” might seem to invalidate our complicated feelings and eclectically formed personal belief systems. I agree with many points brought up that Wilson would do well to appreciate more of the complexities of some of the issues he brings up, instead of taking a more, well, reductionist approach. But, let’s put that matter aside for a second and say that Wilson is just doing his job as a scientist by taking a reductionist approach, and it’s our jobs as readers, post-structuralists, English majors, citizens, or maybe even artists, to synthesize new ideas using what the scientific process has offered us. Not all parts of the human experience can be explained by science — yet — and I suspicion that they may never be explainable by science. So our experiences and our culture, while maybe not interpretable at face value through the lens of science, they are nonetheless important clues.
aaron :: Nov.14.2005 :: Inscape / Landscape class ::