Consilience
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 20:20, 6 December 2010 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 20:30, 6 December 2010 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| [[{{Template}} | [[{{Template}} | ||
| - | List of alternative names for the human species]] | + | '''Consilience''', or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together" of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient [[Greek philosophy|Greek concept]] of an [[intrinsic]] orderliness that governs our [[cosmos]], inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with [[mystical]] views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The [[rational]] view was recovered during the high [[Middle Ages]], separated from [[theology]] during the [[Renaissance]] and found its apogee in the Age of [[The Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]. Then, with the rise of the [[modern science]]s, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries. |
| - | ¨[[Peter Singer]] | + | ==Modern usage== |
| + | The word ''consilience'' was apparently coined by [[William Whewell]], in ''The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences,'' 1840. In this synthesis Whewell explained that, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an [[inductive reasoning|Induction]], obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." | ||
| - | In his book ''[[Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge]]'' (1998) [[Edward O. Wilson]] claimed that it was time for a cooperation of all the sciences to explore human nature. He defined human nature as a collection of epigenetic rules: the genetic patterns of mental development. Cultural phenomena, rituals etc. are products, not part of human nature. Artworks, for example are not part of human nature, but our appreciation of [[art]] is. And this art appreciation, or our fear for snakes, or incest taboo ([[Westermarck effect]]) can be studied by the methods of [[reductionism]]. Until now these phenomena were only part of psychological, sociological and anthropological studies. Wilson proposes it can be part of interdisciplinary research. | + | Modern views understand that each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches. [[Atomic physics]] underlies the workings of [[chemistry]], which studies [[emergence|emergent]] properties that in turn are the basis of [[biology]]. [[Psychology]] can no longer be separated from the study of properties emergent from the interaction of [[neuron]]s and [[synapse]]s. [[Sociology]], [[economics]], and [[anthropology]] are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans. |
| - | An example of this fear is discussed in the book [[An Instinct for Dragons]], where [[anthropologist]] [[David E. Jones]] suggests a hypothesis based on that humans just like monkeys have inherited instinctive reactions to snakes, large cats and birds of prey. Folklore [[dragons]] have features that are combinations of these three, which would explain why dragons with similar features occur in stories from independent cultures on all continents. Other authors have suggested that especially under the influence of drugs or in children's dreams, this instinct may give raise to fantasies and nightmares about dragons, snakes, spiders, etc, which makes these symbols popular in drug culture and in fairy tales for children. The traditional mainstream explanation to the folklore dragons does however not rely on human instinct, but on the assumption that fossils of, for example, [[dinosaur]]s gave raise to similar fantasies all over the world. | + | The fact that all these different areas of research are studying one real, existing universe is an apparent explanation of why generalizations arrived at in one area have often helped in understanding other areas. Consilience is thus often used as an argument for [[scientific realism]] by philosophers of science. |
| + | |||
| + | == Edward O. Wilson == | ||
| + | Although the concept of consilience in Whewell's sense was widely discussed by philosophers of science, the term was unfamiliar to the broader public until the end of the 20th century, when it was vividly revived in ''[[Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge]],'' a 1998 book by the humanist biologist [[Edward Osborne Wilson]], as an attempt to bridge the culture gap between the sciences and the humanities that was the subject of [[C. P. Snow]]'s ''[[The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution]]'' (1959). Wilson's assertion was that the sciences, humanities, and arts have a common goal: to give a purpose to understanding the details, to lend to all inquirers "a conviction, far deeper than a mere working proposition, that the world is orderly and can be explained by a small number of natural laws." Wilson's concept is a much broader notion of consilience than that of Whewell, who was merely pointing out that generalizations invented to account for one set of phenomena often account for others as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A parallel view lies in the term [[universology]], which literally means "the science of the universe." Universology was first advocated for the study of the interconnecting principles and truths of all domains of knowledge by [[Stephen Pearl Andrews]], a 19th century utopian futurist and anarchist. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Election Methods== | ||
| + | The word ''consilience'' has been adapted to refer to a specific process of ''checks and balances'' in election methods that satisfy the following conditions: (1) At least two different ballot tabulation methods shall be relied upon to achieve the ''official election tally''; (2) Each tabulation method employed shall have separate and distinct oversight; (3) Neither tabulation method, nor its oversight and personnel involved, shall communicate with one another during this checking process to prevent cheating; (4) Tallies derived from each ballot method must agree within a margin of discrepancy that would not overturn the outcome of the election; (5) There must be physical paper evidence of the ballots, i.e., at least one of the two methods employed must rely on hand-counted paper ballots or hand-counted ''voter verified paper trails;'' (6) At least two of the tabulation methods must occur at the location where the votes are cast, e.g. the precinct, the poll site; and (7) The process shall commence immediately upon the close of polls and preferably shall conclude without severing the chain of custody of the participants conducting the process. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If ''consilience'' is not achieved upon the first exercise of the election's checks and balances process described above (i.e., the margin of discrepancy of the ballot tallies do not agree), then an investigation including more tabulation shall immediately ensue. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Commonly, ''consilience'' refers to two full hand count tabulation methods if they are achieved by separate and distinct oversight that do not communicate; but, for example, in races surpassing 400,000 ballots cast (to ensure 99% statistical accuracy), it can also mean the concordance of tallies from a 10% sample of paper ballots randomly selected from each and every voting site when compared with the tallies from optiscan-type electronic voting machines. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| - | *[[Human condition]] | + | *[[Holism]] |
| - | *[[Nature]] | + | *[[Intersubjectivity]] |
| - | *[[Nature (philosophy)]] | + | *[[Reductionism]] |
| - | *[[Norm (sociology)]] | + | *[[Syncretism]] |
| - | *[[Norm (philosophy)]] | + | *[[Tree of Knowledge System]] |
| - | *[[Normality (behavior)]] | + | *[[Unity of science]] |
| - | *[[Common sense]] | + | |
| - | *[[Homo sapiens]] | + | |
| - | *[[Humanism]] | + | |
| - | *[[Cynicism]] | + | |
| - | *[[Nature versus nurture]] | + | |
| - | *[[Tabula rasa]] | + | |
| - | *[[Diathesis-stress model]] | + | |
| - | *[[Differential susceptibility hypothesis]] | + | |
| - | *[[Defence mechanism]] | + | |
| - | *[[Enneagram of Personality]] | + | |
| - | *[[Aggressionism]] | + | |
| - | == See also == | ||
| - | *[[Arthur Schopenhauer]] | ||
| - | *[[Naturalism (literature)]] | ||
| - | *[[Sexual Personae]] | ||
| - | *[[Theme (literature)]] | ||
| - | *[[Theme (arts)]] | ||
| - | *[[Culture theory]] | ||
| - | *[[Nature (innate)]] | ||
| - | *[[Essays (Montaigne)]] | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 20:30, 6 December 2010
[[
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Consilience, or the unity of knowledge (literally a "jumping together" of knowledge), has its roots in the ancient Greek concept of an intrinsic orderliness that governs our cosmos, inherently comprehensible by logical process, a vision at odds with mystical views in many cultures that surrounded the Hellenes. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Ages, separated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment. Then, with the rise of the modern sciences, the sense of unity gradually was lost in the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge in the last two centuries.
Contents |
Modern usage
The word consilience was apparently coined by William Whewell, in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1840. In this synthesis Whewell explained that, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs."
Modern views understand that each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches. Atomic physics underlies the workings of chemistry, which studies emergent properties that in turn are the basis of biology. Psychology can no longer be separated from the study of properties emergent from the interaction of neurons and synapses. Sociology, economics, and anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans.
The fact that all these different areas of research are studying one real, existing universe is an apparent explanation of why generalizations arrived at in one area have often helped in understanding other areas. Consilience is thus often used as an argument for scientific realism by philosophers of science.
Edward O. Wilson
Although the concept of consilience in Whewell's sense was widely discussed by philosophers of science, the term was unfamiliar to the broader public until the end of the 20th century, when it was vividly revived in Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, a 1998 book by the humanist biologist Edward Osborne Wilson, as an attempt to bridge the culture gap between the sciences and the humanities that was the subject of C. P. Snow's The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959). Wilson's assertion was that the sciences, humanities, and arts have a common goal: to give a purpose to understanding the details, to lend to all inquirers "a conviction, far deeper than a mere working proposition, that the world is orderly and can be explained by a small number of natural laws." Wilson's concept is a much broader notion of consilience than that of Whewell, who was merely pointing out that generalizations invented to account for one set of phenomena often account for others as well.
A parallel view lies in the term universology, which literally means "the science of the universe." Universology was first advocated for the study of the interconnecting principles and truths of all domains of knowledge by Stephen Pearl Andrews, a 19th century utopian futurist and anarchist.
Election Methods
The word consilience has been adapted to refer to a specific process of checks and balances in election methods that satisfy the following conditions: (1) At least two different ballot tabulation methods shall be relied upon to achieve the official election tally; (2) Each tabulation method employed shall have separate and distinct oversight; (3) Neither tabulation method, nor its oversight and personnel involved, shall communicate with one another during this checking process to prevent cheating; (4) Tallies derived from each ballot method must agree within a margin of discrepancy that would not overturn the outcome of the election; (5) There must be physical paper evidence of the ballots, i.e., at least one of the two methods employed must rely on hand-counted paper ballots or hand-counted voter verified paper trails; (6) At least two of the tabulation methods must occur at the location where the votes are cast, e.g. the precinct, the poll site; and (7) The process shall commence immediately upon the close of polls and preferably shall conclude without severing the chain of custody of the participants conducting the process.
If consilience is not achieved upon the first exercise of the election's checks and balances process described above (i.e., the margin of discrepancy of the ballot tallies do not agree), then an investigation including more tabulation shall immediately ensue.
Commonly, consilience refers to two full hand count tabulation methods if they are achieved by separate and distinct oversight that do not communicate; but, for example, in races surpassing 400,000 ballots cast (to ensure 99% statistical accuracy), it can also mean the concordance of tallies from a 10% sample of paper ballots randomly selected from each and every voting site when compared with the tallies from optiscan-type electronic voting machines.
See also
