DUALISM---in the philosophy of mind the theory that not only are mental phenomena not reducible to physical phenomena, they are wholly distinct, making up two distinct realms of being. (See REDUCTIONISM, PROPERTY DUALISM and SUBSTANCE DUALISM.)

PROPERTY DUALISM---the doctrine that whilst there is only one kind of substance, or one kind of object, there are two distinct categories of properties: mental properties and physical properties. These mental properties are radically distinct to physical properties---they cannot be explained in terms of, or identified with, physical properties. SUBSTANCE DUALISM entails property dualism, but not vice-versa. One may be a property dualist without being a substance dualist: according to such a view, a person is a single entity having both physical properties such as a certain mass and size, and mental properties such as certain beliefs, desires, perceptions and sensations.

SUBSTANCE DUALISM (or CARTESIAN DUALISM)---the doctrine that we need to posit two distinct kinds of entities: immaterial minds (mental substances) and physical things (material substances). Associated with these two domains of entities are two families of properties, one consisting of mental properties (such as having beliefs, desires, sensations), and one consisting of physical properties (such as having a certain size and shape), which characterize the entities of the two domains, minds and bodies, respectively. Substance dualism therefore entails PROPERTY DUALISM. For interactionist versions of substance dualism (the only sort we will consider) minds and material objects can nevertheless causally interact. A person is composed of two entities---a mind and a body---and a person's behaviour is understood as the causal interaction of those two things.

REDUCTIONISM---the idea that certain things might be shown to be nothing but certain other sorts of things. For instance, water is nothing but H2O molecules. We say that statements about water are reducible to statements about collections of H2O molecules.

It is interesting that Gould starts out by telling us the "setting up dichotomies" is a bad habit of human thought and then he proceeds to explain to us that he is a property dualist, cleanly dividing the world into those things which can and cannot be brought within the domain of science.

In contrast, Edmund Wilson is a reductionistic materialist and a monist. Wilson proposes that all of human knowledge can be unified within a science-based view of the world. This is one of the oldest philosophical debates.....is the universe an understandable Unity or is it some arbitrary jumble, forever beyond the human power of unification within our understanding?

According to Gould,  science and the humanities are on two distinct planes of existence: science deals with "fact" while the humanities deal with "judgment". For Gould, Wilson's attempt to bring scientists and humanists together is a "gratuitous battle". We must conclude that "setting up dichotomies" is okay as long as Gould is selecting the dichotomies.

Emergence

image source
Gould next informs us that reductionism is fallacious and that emergence dominates complex systems. Gould presents interesting definitions of reductionism and emergence based on "simple summation of components". According to Gould, reductionism only applies when the properties of a system cannot be reduced to a simple sum of the properties of the system's components. However, we need not accept Gould's definitions. Reductionistic explanations of real world phenomena often include the effects of complex interactions between system components. Go here for some comments on emergence that are guided by Searle's division of the use of the term "emergence" into two categories (just to really bug Gould!).

If a flea lands on Gould, then we can presumably be reductionists and calculate the total weight of the Gould+flea system by simply adding the weight of Gould and the weight of the flea. However, there are certain "non-linear" or "emergent" aspects to the entire Gould+flea system. If the flea bites Gould and some of Gould enters into the digestive system of the flea, the Gould+flea system gets complex. If a few of Gould's molecules get metabolized by the flea, some of Gould will be converted by the flea into carbon dioxide molecules which presumably will be leaving the Gould+flea system at some point in time. The conversion of part of Gould into wandering gas molecules and flea shit must be a complex process, an emergent property of the Gould+flea system. But however magical such metabolic processes may have seemed to 19th century Vitalists, Gould would be hard pressed to find a modern biologist who would be inspired to launch into some "ode to the flea" in order illustrate the transcendental mystery of flea shit and the function of the Krebs Cycle. Presumably Gould would feel confident that science and reductionism can deal with these particular examples of emergent system behavior. But what happens when Gould notices the flea bite? Suddenly the mental properties of the Gould+flea system come into play. Have we left behind the world of science? Many philosophers of mind are mind/brain dualists and claim that Gould's sensation of his flea bite can never be accounted for by science. No matter, let's ignore this gray area and mind our P's and Q's.

Where Gould is clearly a dualist is at the level of culture. If Gould composes an "ode to the flea" in response to his flea bite, then we have left the domain of science. At what point in the evolution of the Gould+flea system do we pass from the domain of Science (the facts of metabolic processes such as Gould's inflammation process at the site of the bite, the neurophysiology of his brain that allows him to respond to the bite) to the unrelated domain of Art (as his brain physiology conspires mysteriously to produce and share with the world a witty ditty about flea bites)? Presumably, at the very moment that Gould or some other cultured humanist lays claim to the beauty and mystery of the Gould+flea system, then it has passed from the domain of science into the domain of the Humanities. Woe be to any silly scientist like Wilson who would seek to understand the links between the physiology of Gould+flea and the Art of the Gould+flea system.

Gould suggests that our brain physiology predisposes us to classify elements of the world into dualistic categories such as good and evil, scientific and humanistic. Biologists like Gerald Edelman agree and have established a science of mental functioning. This is an excellent example of how mysteries once held to be the domain of non-scientists continue to fall to the advancing hoard of the barbarian scientists, or if we must avoid metaphors that offend Gould's sensibilities as Censor, serve as grist for the scientific mill.

What, then, is wrong with Wilson's proposed program in Consilience? Simply that it offends the sensibilities of people. Why bother studying the genetics of homosexuality when we already know that it is an abomination? Fortunately, there have always been a few scientists who have ignored what they were told about the limits of science. It is amazing what happens when people stop listening to "authorities". For many years, millions of people were told that they caused their ulcers by not correctly dealing with their emotions and stress. Then it was learned that a bacterium was really the cause of their ulcers and they were cured by an antibiotic. For all of human history, high infant mortality and slavery were accepted as part of human nature and built into the "great moral systems" of the world. The scientific study of disease, antibiotics, immunizations, and sanitation changed the world, removing 50% infant mortality from our lives. Other scientific and technical advances like the steam engine removed slavery from our lives. Yet Gould assures us that science and the humanities are two different worlds.

Gould mouths the fears of many: that further advances in science must mean death to the humanities. This is the same fear that led to Galileo being told not to speculate about a heliocentric universe. Can we learn nothing from history? Wilson says: let science and the humanities work together to further human understanding; why fear an understanding of complex human issues that involves what we can learn about the biological foundations of human behavior? Gould says: let science and the humanities remain apart, disparate. Wilson admits that his view is currently the minority view, but we have to wonder why such a quiet minority view provokes such outrage from the majority. Is the Emperor naked?
 

Niles Eldredge on the fine Art of Lynching Heretics. My comments.
Return to main Consilience page.