A response to Brian’s “To What End. Engorged modernism?” and E.O. Wilson’s chapter “The Fitness of Human Nature”
Brian: I’d like to add in that the point of interest you find in Wilson, that he is not a “textbook” this or that, is what I appreciate most about him — that he expresses and explores many views and positions, even ones he disagrees with, that he draws ideas from and engages many different disciplines and fields. But he is always a scientist. Always science.
I completely agree with you that the major flaw of Consilience is that with something as overarching as this book, he does not look outside the text enough and consider the many different ways his text might be received by different audiences. That of course, would be what a social scientist might be more interested in, whereas a scientist is interested in publishing data and facts, often leaving what is to be done with this information to other people. For an example of what I mean about not addressing the variation of possible responses and audiences, see my post “E.O. Wilson: Racist or not?”
The benefit of Wilson being a scientist but engaging other disciplines, even if science always seems to get the upper hand in the framework he sets up is that it gets people talking about the issues of consilience where before many humanities people make no attempt at the project. The project of consilience, I think, is worthwhile and should be pursued but it seems like it might require adjustments on both sides (as to how exactly this might play out I have no idea).
On “The Fitness of Human Nature:” I want to clarify that just because a genetic predisposition exists, it is not justified, but understanding genetic bases might help us to exercise more choice in our behavior and culture.
aaron :: Nov.30.2005 :: Inscape / Landscape class ::