Given the sharp reaction provoked, one might imagine that Wilson’s bold proposal is “extreme” enough to fall of its own momentum once toppled by its opponents. According to Eldredge, Wilson’s views on consilience are “almost incomprehensibly silly”. If so, it should be a simple matter for Eldredge to point out how Wilson is being silly so that we can all get back to adult issues.

But before Eldredge can “explain” in what way Wilson is silly, Eldredge first has to exaggerate and distort what Wilson’s position is. Eldredge starts by saying that Wilson ignores the “Nurture” half of (genetic) Nature and (environmental) Nurture. Eldredge tells us that Wilson’s “ontological claim” is that “in every conceivable sense and aspect” humans are nothing but the result of “the competitive behavior of their genes”. This is a distortion of Wilson’s true position. I urge the interested observer to actually touch the offending pages of Wilson’s book and observe how Eldredge has distorted Wilson’s position. In chapter 7, “From Genes to Culture”, Wilson clearly states his position: that we must use objective analysis of each behavioral trait and determine empirically the contributing roles of both genes and environment (see particularly Wilson’s index entry for “nurturism”).

Eldredge’s distortion of Wilson’s position is the standard tactic of constructing a silly straw man, claiming that straw man is identical to your opponent, and then laughing away the straw man and your opponent, never having to bother yourself with actually addressing what your opponent really said. This approach clearly appeals to the thought police at Culture magazine who must fear that all Hell would break loose if someone actually graced their magazine’s pages with an honest summary of Wilson’s ideas. Some poor humanist might be corrupted by the evil Mr. Wilson.....and we can’t have that! Far safer to publish a distorted exaggeration of the condemned man so that the good people of culture need not loose any sleep over the execution.

Eldredge provides the reader with a quick classification of Wilson as a reductionist. This is a move equivalent to McCarthy calling a film producer a communist. The “cultured” and humanistic reader of the late 20th century “knows” that reductionism is bogus, so Wilson must be bogus. QED. Eldredge feels compelled to trot out a philosophical authority for the condemnation of Wilson’s reductionism, so Ernest Nagel makes an appearance, reminding all good cultured humanists that no matter what those evil scientists might try to tell you, reductionism does not work. Knowing the electrons and proteins inside water molecules tells you nothing about wetness. Knowing the nuts and bolts under your car’s hood tells you nothing about why your car is making a clunking noise. Learning about molecules inside cells tells you nothing about the vital principle of life. Learning how a drug molecule interacts with a cell protein tells you nothing about curing a disease. This kind of “know nothing” stance grows increasingly bizarre with each passing year as more and more reductionistic successes become known to more and more people, at least those who bother to learn a little science. It is truly bizarre when someone trained in science “believes” that reductionistic materialism is just a failed philosophy for the weak minded. But in this forum, Eldredge is targeting a scientifically-illiterate audience, so he runs with the arguments that will “play” well.

Eldredge preaches a high sermon of praise for “emergent properties” of complex systems. These (emergent properties) are properties of complex systems “that intrinsically cannot be addressed by the reductionist enterprise.” And of course, we can be glad that we have all-seeing and all-knowing visionaries like Eldredge around to tell us just what these “emergent properties” are so that we need not waste our time trying to reduce them to physical principles.

To start with, there is the Mystery of the Celestial Realm. No matter how much we might learn about the material substances on Earth, we can never know and understand the Ineffably Perfect Properties of the Stars. Oh, wait, I forgot......stars are made of the same atoms that the Earth is made of. Duh! Well, then, there is still the Mystery of the Vitalistic Property of Life. No matter how much chemists tell us about the molecules inside cells, we will never be able to reduce Life to molecular motions. Oh, wait, I forgot......you CAN explain life in terms of the molecules of cells. Well then, there is still the mystery of human behavior.......and do not try to tell me that studying genes and the molecules inside brains will ever lead us to an understanding of the mysterious properties of human thought, language, culture, and the human soul. No. Never. And yet, science does march on. Wilson mentions how neuroscientists are starting to map the genes that control human behavior. People like Francis Crick have defined a scientific program for the reductionistic analysis of the human mind and neuroscientists are executing that program. What once seemed impenetrable mysteries of human behavior are being explained by the reductionistic materialists.

But Eldredge, who has no need to even mention the empirical evidence discussed in Wilson’s book, feels free to simple state dogmatically that Wilson is silly. It is all a duplication of the Vitalists of the 1940’s, continuing right to the bitter end to proclaim that molecules could never explain the mystery of life. Why an educated man like Eldredge would want to play the same role is mysterious. I guess it is always better to tell people what they want to hear than to have to be the one to tell people that they are mistaken. And there are certainly biologists that come to biology because they hope it is an escape from the march of reductionism in the physical sciences. It pleases Eldredge to imagine that there are emergent and irreducible reasons for his love of music. Apparently, it would crush him to learn that he inherited particular genes that made him a music lover. Against such a sad discovery we must rally around, circle the wagons, and condemn Wilson for suggesting such a horrible idea. Eldredge cries, WHY? WHY? Why even attempt Wilson's program of consilience when so much is at risk? Clearly, Eldredge's emotions and the genes that make him an emotional creature are in charge.....he cannot even learn from the history of science that he is the one being silly, that in the end, the facts will decide the issue, not his wishes.
†

Return to main Consilience page.