Agnostic.com

4 4

E. O. Wilson says science should embrace the humanities…

[agnostic.com]

.

skado 9 Mar 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Wilson, who died a few months ago, was also quite racist. Although I respect his advocacy for ecological preservation, he should probably have stuck to his specialty of ants instead of pretending to be an authority on people.

[freethoughtblogs.com]

Thanks for posting. I had not heard about this. I’ll keep my eyes peeled for further input. Meyers can sometimes be a bit of an ideologue himself. If Wilson was a racist, then shame on him for that, but it doesn’t necessarily then weaken every other argument he ever made about anything. Goes to show why we shouldn’t make heroes of humans, because they’re all… human.
Every. Last. One.

1

To be fair Wilson (with Lumsden) had an interesting idea of gene-culture coevolution. Milk usage arguably had a genetic impact on dairying human populations resulting in lactase persistence. Their concept of culturgens intended to leash culture in a manner similar to the developmental chreodes put forward by Waddington. The idea lost in a popularity contest with Dawkins’ memes, an overly atomized notion of Darwinian cultural units now relegated to shared images on social media. Wilson even, if memory serves, seemed fond of Jung’s archetypes in the mold of culturgens. Yet another idea that has been found lacking even before he (Jung) flirted with synchronicity.

Dawkins wound up unhappy with Wilson’s flirtations in a group selectionist mode toward the last part of the latter’s career. Yeah because gene selectionism is so much better a shoehorn.

1

Wilson was known for such bombastic quotes as: “the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Sociobiology). Similarly the “embrace” of the humanities can be seen more as a scientistic colonization of the humanities (a subversion) in service of highly Darwinized rhetoric or polemics of evolutionary psychology. The humanities thus lose their autonomy cast as a bunch of radicalized woke postmoderns in need of housecleaning by the skeptical dudebros.

Plus science would also lose as well, since its greatest gift, is that of organized rigorous scepticism, which would need to be eroded away first. While the humanities greatest gift is unfettered imagination.

It is good to have both in your cultural mix, but while you can have, and benefit from having both, you can not do both at the same time. Believing and attempting to do both at the same time, just leads back to a world of dogma, which is the name we generally give to ideas produced by not differentiating between those ideas assumed into existence by unbridled culture, and those passed through the filters used by science and philosophy.

While the dream of one universal culture, is in reality a vision of horrifying dystopian repression. Which would probably, if you believe his theory of tribalism, break into two factions anyway, so he is logically inconsistent about that. And that single tribal split with no dilution of any other views would probably be the most vicious and nasty the human race has ever seen.

0

[en.wikipedia.org]

@skado 👍🏻

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:657796
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.