Talk:Consilience

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Election Theory[edit]

The term from election theory should presumably be put on a separate page from the term in philosophy of science, with a disambiguation page if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.142.91 (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone up for it or are we all too lazy? Wiki-BT (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both these comments - it should be separated out - User:Maven111 212.84.114.242 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The note on Recent Changes said "see talk"; the page had a link "/talk" which led nowhere; I changed it to "/Talk" which also led nowhere. If someone had something to say, it didn't take; please try again.

Someone wrote: "Since the scientific method is the one proven method by which mankind has been able to decipher reality? on any consistent basis, only "Inductions" which arise out of applications of the scientific method can be accepted as vaild indicators of consilience."

I'm really sorry that I had to delete this, because I think if written in a less inflammatory and patently false way, it might have provided useful information; as it is I am not sure how to re-write it. The scientific method is only "the one proven method by which mankind has been able to decipher reality" from a point of view which deifies science. Let me take the statement in chunks: "[T]he scientific methos is the one proven method..." Proven how? I'd like to see you indicate to me, in a way which does not make use of the scientific method, that the scientific method holds this exalted status. All the scientific method does is provide self-consistent results.

"...method by which mankind has been able to decipher reality..." "decipher reality?" What does that mean? Again, how do we know what "reality" is, outside of what the scientific method tells us? Don't get me wrong... I approve of the so-called "scientific method," even though I think the term is assinine, because the scientific approach is not so easily describable as the people who use that term would like. Heck, I make my living doing science. But when "Science" is deified like this, it really sets my blood aboil. --Alex Kennedy

Sorry to have set your blood aboil, Alex. That certainly was not my intent. Being relatively new at this, it's not easy for me to compose directly onto the "Editing" page, particularly in light of the fact that I'm not a scientist, per se, being more of a writer with eclectic tastes. I tried a re-write. Please review it to see if it makes better sense to you, and that it doesn't "deify" science, which also was not intentional.

Using ignorance as an excuse, I don't understand this: "The note on Recent Changes said "see talk"; the page had a link "/talk" which led nowhere; I changed it to "/Talk" which also led nowhere. If someone had something to say, it didn't take; please try again." Can you explain this in terms a neophyte can understand? :)

Well, a couple of things : first, sorry to say my blood was aboil - your edit more than satisfied me. Second, I was still writing what you see above when you checked /talk... hence you saw nothing - I hadn't submitted yet :P Don't think my giant uncontrollable wrath characterises the Wikipedia, please. --Alex Kennedy

LOL! I hardly think your "wrath" as you put it was either "giant" or "uncontrollable." Glad you liked the rewrite, and also glad to make your acquaintence! F. Lee Horn

Consilience, "Universology" and "reductionism"[edit]

To say that they are equivalents is less than useful. This entry needs to separate the two concepts, clarifying each in the process. --Wetman 07:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"...And in this way consilience is very similar to reductionism." the article tells us. This isn't true, and in this abbreviated formula it can't be very useful. --Wetman 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed quotations[edit]

The eight long quotations at the end should have their source(s) indicated please. Dirac66 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with Google the ones I found are from Wilson's book. Dirac66 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of quotations from the book[edit]

I removed the following mass of text from the main article (Consilience) because it's just too unbalancing to the rest of the article and, while it's a simulating reading, it needs more paraphrasing and introductory prose. Even if these eight paragraphs were (and possibly are) in the article about the book (Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge), I'm not sure they're entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. In that case, I'll put them in a "Quotations" section of the article about the book instead of this talk page and see what discussion follows. Xaxafrad 04:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consilience Journal - remove?[edit]

It looks like a vanity section. It's got nothing to do with the topic apart from the title. Should it go?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is there a root or is everything a branch?[edit]

"each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches" does this apply to atomic physics as well?217.232.225.3 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that the observational side of atomic physics heavily depends on "lab-scale" physics being in good order, so in the final brew, from an evidentiary point of view they depend on each other. But of course from the theoretical or axiomatic side, you are completely right, the small implies the large, but doesn't need it to be logically complete on its own. That is the principle of reductionism. 89.217.22.3 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find refs for the term "consilience" in elections[edit]

I've had a quick skim of Google and Google Scholar and can't find anything showing "consilience" as a jargon term in election counting, anywhere. Something like the concept, certainly, but nothing suggesting the word is a term in the field. Anyone else? This section needs citing or removal - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for now. Feel free to restore if a decent reference to it as a jargon term can actually be found - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead examples[edit]

I seem to recall that continental drift/plate tectonics was finally accepted by the scientific community due to consilience. This might be a good example to add to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was because, of all the theories, it was the only one that they finally came up with a mechanism for (subduction). Which then checked out as pretty much correct in all sorts of ways - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Consilience as a Theory[edit]

Is consilience an assumption, a hypothesis, an inductive conjecture, a theory, or a basic foundation of the universe? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a principle of evidence or of rational thought, especially in complex situations where many pieces of evidence or even multiple fields of inquiry come together. I don't think it's precise enough or contentful enough to be an axiom, a theory, or a criterion. It's more a pattern description or rational reconstruction (normative reconstruction) of the way we think.

To my ears it has a smoothly pompous Latin sound, linguistically evoking sympathetic magic or synodical harmonization, but that's just me. 89.217.22.3 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources[edit]

this can probably be used as a reference. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please provide sources for this?[edit]

The intro looks great, but is lacking sources. Particularly, does anyone know a good source for this statement: Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.

If you could add sources, I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovmiester (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the page sound?[edit]

Consilience is mostly used to refer to approaches to interdisciplinary research. The page now refers to this level but also and very often to much more common experimental approaches within the same discipline (e.g., measures of independent variables, measurement of different physical dimensions of the same physical phenomenon). The definition needs a review IMHO. Tytire (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]