Talk:Consilience (book)

This is a controversial book. Wilson knew it would enrage many non-scientists. Much of the book was crafted by Wilson in anticipation of the complaints that he knew would be heaped upon him for daring to discuss the unity of knowledge. For those of Wilson's critics who actually bother to read the book, after they are done dismissing the idea of consilience (as Wilson explained they would try to do) they really should take the time to address the fact that Wilson predicted how consilience would be dismissed without the critics ever bothering to discuss the specifics of the book.

To label this book as being "slight" provides only the point of view of those who Wilson knew would reject the idea of consilience. It would be neutral and objective to first describe the controversy over the idea of consilience and then say, "Critics of Wilson's book about consilience have tried to dismiss it as being slight. Readers of the book who find value in it often describe it as a book that deals constructively with very weighty matters that confront modern society."

To say that this book is about a way "to unite the hard sciences with the humanities" is like saying a Shakespeare play is a way to unite nouns and verbs. Wilson makes clear that consilience can be sought between ALL branches of human knowledge. Wilson provides many specific proposals for how to seek consilience between what are currently isolated domains of human knowledge and intellectual exploration. An evaluation of the merits of Wilson's book can only be built rationally upon analysis of Wilson's specific proposals for unifying adjacent domains of knowledge. For example, Wilson points out that we can associate each meme that a person has to the specific neural network that allows that meme to exist in thought and guide behavior. This idea is as refreshing, powerful, simple, dramatic and world-shattering as was the idea that a gene is a specific part of a chromosome.

When I have the time, I will make a list of the many other specific paths towards consilience that Wilson discusses in his book. This will provide a basis for objective evaluation of the book. JWSchmidt 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excessive use of bold?

Does anyone else think that the section"Examples of consilience discussed by Wilson" contains excessive use of bold? RJFJR (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)