Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Consilience - the Unity of Knowledge
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 27 (517010)
07-28-2009 7:55 PM


I am currently reading Consilience, the Unity of Knowledge by E.O. Wilson, A.A.Knopf 1998, one of the books from my dad's library that escaped the house fire they had in feb.
He talks about the seemingly inevitable unification of knowledge ...
"Consilience is the key to unification. I prefer this word over "coherence" because its rarity has preserved its precision, whereas coherence as several possible meanings, only one of which is consilience."
...
A balanced perspective cannot be acquired by studying disciplines in pieces but through the pursuit of the consilience among them
... and he feels that universities have abrogated some of their responsibilities to teach general knowledge, including some introduction to sciences, to all students.
He asks this question:
"What is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important for human welfare?"
He says every college student should be able to answer this, every politician should be able to answer this, every public thinker should be able to answer this.
So what is your take on the relation between science and humanities and how important it is for human welfare?
Enjoy.
I'll be traveling for the rest of the week, so I won't have much opportunity for input until next week, that should provide some time for people to post their answers without need to dive into debate over various positions.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 07-29-2009 9:51 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by Perdition, posted 07-29-2009 10:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2009 6:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 1:46 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2009 12:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 27 (517125)
07-29-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Stile
07-29-2009 9:51 AM


Is there a "right" answer?
Hi Stile,
First of all, I'm afraid to answer the question because I hate being wrong and getting all embarrassed 'n stuff.
I'm not sure there IS a right or wrong answer, as I'm not sure "consilience" is an acheivable goal. Desirable? maybe. Useful? maybe.
But to conceive of a human able to encompass all knowledge is daunting image, so it would have to be done as a cultural group of connected individuals, with all the flaws in conceptualization and understanding that this entails.
But, I'm going to ... give this a try:
So you're saying that each informs the other, one in direction and one in content?
For my mind, it seems that humanities answer questions not open to science, questions from philosophy, politics, culture, the big whys, filling an emotional void\vacancy in science.
Science answers how things work, and predicts some things that should occur if all else is equal, and it fixes knowledge firmly on a basis of established facts.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 07-29-2009 9:51 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 07-30-2009 9:13 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 26 by themasterdebator, posted 08-19-2009 11:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 27 (517739)
08-02-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stile
07-30-2009 9:13 AM


the meaning of conscilience - what is a "perfect" human?
Hi again Stile,
Thanks for that. I have to admit that I didn't quite know what the word "consilience" meant, and I was too lazy to go and look it up. I mean, c'mon... it would have taken at least 40 seconds. Not to mention stopping my hand from typing and having to reach for my mouse. That was just too much for me.
Especially when you think you know what the word means from context. So we have two different avenues reaching the same concordant conclusion/s.
Message 12
I don't see any reason why humanities could possibly be considered "higher knowledge" than science. It's impossible to have high confidence in a "correct" answer. There's always a measure of "or this entire concept could be completely irrelevant, really..."
Ah, but you are confusing "correct" with "right" -- it is possible to have a "correct" answer from science but never a "right" answer - see anlagard, Message 16.
Message 11
I agree with the broad, general sense of this statement. Personally, I'd add something in like "Humanities tells us what we think OUGHT TO BE."
One way to look at it is to see what a "perfect" human being would be when viewed by science and when viewed by humanities (from art to philosophy).
Perhaps a list of words and then which ones belong in what columns?
healthy
fit
intelligent
inquisitive
caring
...
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : addd

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 07-30-2009 9:13 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 27 (517743)
08-02-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2009 7:38 PM


Re: CP Snow - "Two Cultures"
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Thanks for the The Two Cultures link.
I think the constructionists are wrong because science works. Here we are on these internets, we've put a man on the moon, F-16s, etc... science can obviously "objectively make unbiased and non-culturally embedded observations about nature".
I was thinking more along the lines of the "splinter cultures" in the Gordon R. Dickson Childe Cycle stories (science fiction, Dorsai, etc), where the breakup of culture is almost complete, and where you have many different subcultures that can converse, but not with complete understanding of each other.
Childe Cycle - Wikipedia
quote:
As originally envisioned, the Cycle was to stretch from the 14th century to the 24th century; the completed books begin in the 21st century. The cycle deals with the conflict between progress and conservatism. It also deals with the interaction and conflict among humanity's traits, most importantly Courage, Faith, and Philosophy.
Courage is personified by the Dorsai, Faith by the Friendlies, and Philosophy by the Exotics, but they are not the only splinter cultures:
quote:
Other Splinter Cultures include the hard scientists of Newton and Venus, the miners of Coby, the fishermen of Dunnin's World, the engineers of Cassida, the Catholic farmers of St. Marie, and the merchants of Ceta.
I don't think it is a complete dichotomy, or even a "trichotomy", but a mix of what each person understands about reality, all coming from different backgrounds, education and experiences. I'm not even sure I could define two extremes for a spectrum.
quote:
The internal consistency of the series suggests that the resolution to be sought in Childe is the evolution of Responsible Man, individuals who integrate the three disciplines of the Dorsai, the Exotics, and the Friendlies to the overall advancement of humanity, and who do possess explicit if not yet well-defined paranormal abilities.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added again

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2009 7:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 12:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 27 (523501)
09-10-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by themasterdebator
08-19-2009 11:33 PM


where is the feedback?
Hi themasterdebator, sorry for taking so long to respond.
I would say humanity is focused on goal setting while science is focused on goal reaching.
I have a little bit of trouble with this, because strictly speaking you could have {the humanities} making decisions on what goals to set completely uninformed by the reality of different options and the ramifications of those decisions.
Take the issue of stem cell research for instance - an issue fraught with emotion for some people, but which has vast potential for good new medical solutions to problems that plague people. Schrubbia made a stupid uniformed decision based on emotion and kowtowing to religious fanatics, limiting research to specific cell lines that came from mostly abnormal\diseased people, completely oblivious to the fact that thousands of brand new healthy stem cell lines are discarded every year by fertility clinics. This in spite of a survey of the owners of those discarded cells where they overwhelmingly supported donating the cells to research.
Humanities would assign things value(generally to people and satisfying a certain need or want of theirs), science would then be the processing of most efficiently maximizing that value.
And if the "value" assigned is based on belief rather than knowledge and evidence, we can end up doing worthless work for nonsensical goals.
What you need is a feedback system, an intermediate between what is (or may be) possible and what is wanted that evaluates the practicality as well as the desirability of the goals.
I used to quip that science was the art of understanding the universe, and that engineering was the art of making practical use of that knowledge. The problem is that it doesn't end there -- if you allow engineers to design everything then you end up with towns in square blocks and buildings produced by rubber stamps. You need artistic input to the designs to make them more organic, and satisfying to the subjective nature of people.
What you end up with is a design spiral with multiple opportunities for input before the final design is agreed on by all factions.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by themasterdebator, posted 08-19-2009 11:33 PM themasterdebator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024