# Edward O. Wilson on Salon: not too sharp **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2006, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251 "2006-03-21T05:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/21 "2006-03-22T06:47:50Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Any discussion of the soul can be said to be mystical. You obviously have no knowledge and/or comprehension of metaphysics and its history. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/22 "2006-03-22T11:02:05Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > You obviously have no knowledge and/or comprehension of metaphysics and its history. If you don’t want to debate that’s fine. But making sweeping statements about what knowledge I have or don’t have is not debating-- it’s hiding behind a personal attack. Good luck with your thread. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/23 "2006-03-22T11:13:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Yep, that’s pretty much it. New Age doesn’t have to be “new”, and generally isn’t. It’s usually recycled old stuff thrown together to sound mystical. And what is it called when some old logical fallacies, like poisoned well and non sequitur, are thrown together to sound like criticisms of the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/24 "2006-03-22T11:45:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If you don’t want to debate that’s fine. But making sweeping statements about what knowledge I have or don’t have is not debating-- it’s hiding behind a personal attack. Good luck with your thread. Fear not, there are several here who are qualified to debate. Good day. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/25 "2006-03-22T17:55:26Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The idea that a belief in evolution in incompatible with a sophisticated view of soul/spirit/afterlife is incorrect. Well, I’m not sure it’s all that sophisticated really, but in any case that’s again not my reading of what he said: the **origin** of cognition as an evolutionary process similar to other processes is quite different to souls waiting to be born, IMO _so_ different that I struggle to see their compatibility. > [@](#): > > It’s really no difficulty unless you make it one. Neither is a flat Earth. > [@](#): > > Answer me this: What is a neutrino “made of”? OK, let’s say it’s a configuration of a field (what kind of field isn’t really relevant), like a photon, quark or electron. > [@](#): > > I have your answer: A neutrino is just an equation-balancer, an element of the pattern. Pattern **of what**. I say _of the field_. You say _of_ … nothing? Something? What? You say it’s an “equation balancer”, but that makes as little sense as saying a neutrino is a sequence of letters n-e-u-t-r-i-n-o. > [@](#): > > Hell, we looked at fusion in the sun and said that they must exist and by gob they did (salt mines, barrels of water, etc.)! A neutrio is not made of “stuff.” Yes, the hypothesis had **physically detectable consequences**. That’s what “stuff” _means_ in physics. > [@](#): > > Ah, but the “electromagnetic field” is not so much a thing but a manner of speaking intelligently and “scientifically” about the pattern we recognize. Nonsense. The electromagnetic field is just as much a thing as an atom or a rock - it is _detectable_. Your “patterns are elementary” position is sounding more and more like plain old _idealism_. Disappear up that canal if you wish, but I likely won’t debate you further since I consider it more alimentary than elementary. > [@](#): > > Electromagnetic waves are a pattern. Of what? Understand that the only thing I’d dare to call myself an actual authority on is vibration, so I wish to explore these “vibrations near the ceiling” with you thoroughly. > [@](#): > > That’s right. I’ve seen and heard a ghost with my own eyes. They influence energy and matter on our own plane. Great, just direct me to the relevant peer-reviewed paper and I’ll toast their Nobel Prize (_ie._ **cite** , please). If there is no evidence of such a calibre whatsoever, then I’ll politely suggest you might as well be talking about seeing mommy kissing Santa Claus in terms of photons _actually reflecting off their physical bodies_. > [@](#): > > It would seem that in the Afterlife there is a continuation of the mental side but one may pick and choose, as it were, from one’s physical history. And one’s preferred wardrobe, no doubt. > [@](#): > > I’m not really attached to either term (or “spirit” for that matter) and don’t pretend to have knowledge of the specifics. Excellent: can we stop talking about souls and stick exclusively with minds, then? The former makes it difficult not to speak at cross purposes. > [@](#): > > You’re an atheist and ought to be slapping EOW for his namby-pamby prov-deism as much as I am. I’ll do no such thing, any more than I slap theists here. His view is logically valid as other theists or deists (assuming they don’t posit premises involving _physical interaction_ of these goddy entities), and “provisional deism” is IMO a concise and to-the-point phrase . > [@](#): > > Prove it. Providing a priori contradictions and absurdities doesn’t aid your dismissal of age-old problems. Prove the **IMO** in my sentence? Even if you’ve never heard [that ‘absurdity’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colourless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously), I would hope you’d agree that some age old problems come directly and trivially from language itself. > [@](#): > > the fact that the Earth’s gravity accelerates objects at 9.8 m/s2 seems arbitrary. It appears to us to be contingent (on something) Oh, you mean the fine tuning of the universe?. Yes, of course cosmology and Higgs field dynamics seeks to explain those numbers. But that’s what explanation _is_ - replacing the arbitrariness of the description with a mechanism which yields that description. > [@](#): > > The fact that 2 + 2 = 4, on the other hand, seems absolute, necessary. We cannot imagine it otherwise. I can imagine 2+2=5. It just doesn’t follow logically from axioms like the identity theorem and the like. But I _could_ toss out those axioms if _I_ liked. They are only “absolute” if you accept the premise “They’re absolute”. > [@](#): > > I reaffirm my slightly hyperbolic characterization based on the context. OK, so long as you don’t complain about such ‘slight’ hyperbole from others characterising _you_. > [@](#): > > And likewise I should like to know what the word could possibly mean once you were through with it. If you seek to provide a “purpose” to evolution go right ahead, but you’ll find the same reaction as mine elsewhere. > [@](#): > > All that is, is natural. In that case, can you tell me something that _is not_? Again, it sounds like you wish to contort the word “natural” beyond even the most generously elastic of limits, such that it’s not worth using it at all. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/26 "2006-03-22T18:01:14Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Why bother to defend Prof. Wilson? I’m doing so because I don’t think the quotes **Aeschines** picks on are at all objectionable. It seems that any old yahoo can submit an article on some philosophical subject or other, but the moment a _reputed scientist_ from some field or other has a go they are taken to task with overwhelming pedantry. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/27 "2006-03-22T22:24:43Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I’m doing so because I don’t think the quotes **Aeschines** picks on are at all objectionable. It seems that any old yahoo can submit an article on some philosophical subject or other, but the moment a _reputed scientist_ from some field or other has a go they are taken to task with overwhelming pedantry. My point really was that Wilson should be given the opportunity to refute criticism. If he can than our defense isn’t needed, if he can’t then our defense is useless. Fighting ignorance is about educating those who are ignorant of this or that or whatever. The OP claims that _Wilson’s_ interview displayed a certain degree of ignorance in some areas. Then _Wilson_ should be the one who is made aware of what the OP thinks is correct in those areas. How will he ever learn if he isn’t informed of his mistakes? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/28 "2006-03-23T09:34:45Z")
Well, OK, let’s wait for Edward O. Wilson to turn up here … [weeks of silence punctuated only by the escapement mechanism of an antique clock] On second thoughts, if there’s a debate to be had here (and I think some of the OP’s criticisms really ought to be addressed by _someone_) we might be better having it _ourselves_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/29 "2006-03-23T12:09:32Z")
Frankly, what I’d like to see a scientist discuss philosophically is the philosophy of science. Why should I care about Edward O. Wilson’s opinions on Genesis anymore than I care about Billy Graham’s opinions on abiogenesis? If Wilson wants to opine, let him opine about Stove’s criticisms of Popper. To me, _that_ would be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/30 "2006-03-23T17:13:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Frankly, what I’d like to see a scientist discuss philosophically is the philosophy of science. Why should I care about Edward O. Wilson’s opinions on Genesis anymore than I care about Billy Graham’s opinions on abiogenesis? If Wilson wants to opine, let him opine about Stove’s criticisms of Popper. To me, _that_ would be interesting. To be fair, Wilson wasn’t actively seeking to put this information out there. He was interviewed, and the interview injected those questions for an obvious reason-- more people are going to read about the supposed conflict between religion and science than would read a dry interview with Wilson about his scientific thoughts on evolution. Seems to me your issue, to the extent you have one, is with the interviewer, not with Wilson. Having said that, an evolutionary biologist like Wilson is going to have a legitimate interest in religious belief, as a human behavior. I can’t see how equating that interest with a televangilist’s interest in the scientific aspects of abiogenisis is meaningful in any serious way. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/31 "2006-03-23T17:25:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > To be fair, Wilson wasn’t actively seeking to put this information out there. He was interviewed, and the interview injected those questions for an obvious reason-- more people are going to read about the supposed conflict between religion and science than would read a dry interview with Wilson about his scientific thoughts on evolution. Seems to me your issue, to the extent you have one, is with the interviewer, not with Wilson. That would indeed be my issue if I knew that the interviewer were choke-holding Wilson and demanding that he speak. Otherwise, he was free to ask for the next question. > [@](#): > > Having said that, an evolutionary biologist like Wilson is going to have a legitimate interest in religious belief, as a human behavior. I can’t see how equating that interest with a televangilist’s interest in the scientific aspects of abiogenisis is meaningful in any serious way. That makes no sense. You’re simply condeding the unwillingness or inability to consider an opposing view. Why should Graham be more precluded from having an interest in the scientific aspects of abiogenesis than Wilson from having an interest in the philosophical aspects of religion? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/32 "2006-03-23T17:33:47Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That would indeed be my issue if I knew that the interviewer were choke-holding Wilson and demanding that he speak. Otherwise, he was free to ask for the next question. In as much as you are expressing your own personal opion, then of course you are right. But so what? You don’t have an interest in Wilson’s thoughts on religion. Lots of other people do. > [@](#): > > That makes no sense. You’re simply condeding the unwillingness or inability to consider an opposing view. Why should Graham be more precluded from having an interest in the scientific aspects of abiogenesis than Wilson from having an interest in the philosophical aspects of religion? Yeah, poor wording on my part. Why should you care about Wilson’s opinion? I can’t answer that. Why should anyone? Because he studies behavior and religioius belief is a behavior. He’s not commenting so much on Genesis, but on religious behavior in general. AFAIK, Graham has never studied abiogenesis. If he has, then you are correct in that his views on the subject might be of interest. Has he? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/33 "2006-03-23T17:41:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In as much as you are expressing your own personal opion, then of course you are right. But so what? You don’t have an interest in Wilson’s thoughts on religion. Lots of other people do. And those that do are free to criticize those thoughts, are they not? > [@](#): > > Yeah, poor wording on my part. Why should you care about Wilson’s opinion? I can’t answer that. Why should anyone? Because he studies behavior and religioius belief is a behavior. He’s not commenting so much on Genesis, but on religious behavior in general. AFAIK, Graham has never studied abiogenesis. If he has, then you are correct in that his views on the subject might be of interest. Has he? Like I said, I would be interested in his opinion of Stove, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Feyerabend. These were philosophers in whom he _ought_ to take an interest. They, after all, formulated what he does. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/34 "2006-03-23T17:42:36Z")
Incidentally, I don’t know about the “religioius belief is a behavior” argument. He studies the behaviors of bugs, doesn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/35 "2006-03-23T18:02:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Incidentally, I don’t know about the “religioius belief is a behavior” argument. He studies the behaviors of bugs, doesn’t he? Primarily, yes, but not exclusively. In fact, one of his Pulitzer prize winning books is _On Human Nature._ I found it to be an excellent book, although it might be a little dated at this point considering the many scientific advances since it’s publication in 1978. IIRC, I read it about 20 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/36 "2006-03-23T18:16:32Z")
That’s fair. After all, preachers (ICR, AIG, etc.) have written lots of books about evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/37 "2006-03-23T18:43:00Z")
**Liberal** , is your position here that only priests, ministers, and other clerical folk are allowed to have or state an opinion of religious matters? I’m not sure where you’re going with your line of reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/38 "2006-03-23T20:28:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **Liberal** , is your position here that only priests, ministers, and other clerical folk are allowed to have or state an opinion of religious matters? I’m not sure where you’re going with your line of reasoning. My position is that it is as silly to consider Wilson an expert on theology as it is to consider Graham an expert on biology. I’m bucking against the notion that what Wilson has said is profoundly true simply because Wilson has said it, there are no discernable flaws in what he has said or opposing opinions worth a damn, and that questioning what he has said is tantamount to intellectual suicide. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/39 "2006-03-23T20:32:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > My position is that it is as silly to consider Wilson an expert on theology as it is to consider Graham an expert on biology. I’m bucking against the notion that what Wilson has said is profoundly true simply because Wilson has said it, there are no discernable flaws in what he has said or opposing opinions worth a damn, and that questioning what he has said is tantamount to intellectual suicide. Has anyone here put forth that notion? What I saw \*\*SM \*\*doing was questioning the specific criticism that the OP was making, not stating that no criticism was valid. I think you are bucking against a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251/40 "2006-03-23T21:15:05Z")
John, I wouldn’t presume to buck SentientMeat. I consider him to be an intellectual giant. Even when I disagree with him, I respect him. I don’t even have to know what he said to know that it was insightful, pertinent, and strongly argued. Notice that I have not addressed one post in here to him. My beef was with you, and your dismissal of the OP as mumbo-jumbo and mysticism. I haven’t read Sentient’s posts in here because frankly, the topic doesn’t really interest me that much. But your post caught my eye because it seemed completely out of left field. (You still haven’t shown that anything had been said about agnosticism.) My hope had been that Wilson was discussing a philosopher of science. It was disappointing to find yet another ill-conceived rant about religion from a man who lumps together 100,000 philosophical takes on metaphysics together as one continuous ideal. It would be like condemning science because of alchemy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/edward-o-wilson-on-salon-not-too-sharp/349251.md?page=3)