MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1971990838 · doi:10.1353/mfs.2012.0028

Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities (review)

2012· article· en· W1971990838 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louis Slimak

Notice bibliographique

RevueModern fiction studies · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConsilienceEmbodied cognitionDisciplineSociologyPhilosophy of scienceHumanitiesEpistemologyPhilosophySocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities Louis Slimak Edward Slingerland and Mark Collard, Eds. Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. xv + 450pp. In 2008, the University of British Columbia sponsored a workshop called "Integrating Science and the Humanities." Creating Consilience is the direct result of that workshop. This collection of essays, edited by Edward Slingerland, Canada Research Chair in Chinese Thought and Embodied Cognition, and Mark Collard, Canada Research Chair in Human Evolutionary Studies, brings together research from scholars [End Page 406] from a range of disciplines, including philosophy, anthropology, bioethics, English, and evolutionary studies. It also includes essays with varying viewpoints on the project of consilience itself—an extension of interdisciplinarity across the sciences/humanities divide—addressing the project's potential, feasibility, limitations, and desirability. The workshop and this edited collection arose out of a simple but ambitious goal: the "attempt to develop a new, shared framework for the sciences and humanities" (4). Part of the collection's purpose was to establish a "second wave" of consilience, one that, like the second wave of feminism, both grew out of and included the earlier wave but also pushed forward in new directions (23). The first wave of consilience was put forward in the work of John Tooby and Leda Cosmides and E. O. Wilson, and has faced two major challenges: the first, substantive, the second, stylistic. Substantively, the workshop tried to address how "issues such as the relationship between evolved human cognitive architecture and culture, or the status of science in the chain of explanation, needed to be treated in a more sophisticated fashion" (23). Stylistically, the humanists in the workshop, who are represented in the collection's essays, tried to shift "the rhetoric of proponents of consilience (most of them coming from the science side of the science/humanities divide) [that] often tended to sound dismissive of the value of traditional humanistic work" (23). These two shifts provide the theoretical and rhetorical basis that unifies the collection, with essays respecting "emergent levels of truth" (24), "recognizing the importance of gene-culture co-evolution" (28), and arguing that "consilience is a two-way street" (30). In their introduction to the volume, Slingerland and Collard go so far as to say that while "consilience can provide a crucially important new explanatory framework within which literary studies could operate, it does not necessarily entail radical alterations in the everyday methodology, vocabulary, or focus of interest of the average humanist. Literary scholars, for instance, do not need to stop talking about history and genre, or confine themselves only to terms and concepts drawn from evolutionary psychology" (26). On the whole, the collection succeeds in addressing these concerns, with the exception, perhaps, that any casual humanist interested in consilience will definitely feel that joining the project does require radical alterations of their methodology and vocabulary, and in this regard, they would be correct. The collection is arranged in two parts with six subsections. Part 1 deals with Theoretical Issues, and section 1 presents essays on "Ontologies for the Human," featuring pro-consilience arguments from Steven Pinker, Edward Slingerland, and Brian Fiala, Adam Arico, [End Page 407] and Shaun Nichols, and a counterargument from Richard Shweder. The Pinker article serves as an excellent and concise introduction to some of the foundational theoretical issues that both propel the consilience movement as well as impede its progression. Section 2 of part 1 is devoted to "Consilience Through the Lens of Anthropology," and uses that discipline as a proving ground for the theoretical issues raised in section 1. In this section, Pascal Boyer and Harvey Whitehouse provide the pro-consilience essays, while Bradd Shore's "Unconsilience: Rethinking the Two-Cultures Conundrum in Anthropology" provides the collection with some of the most relevant criticism and cautions of the consilience movement, highlighting human variation and cultural evolution as two factors that make explaining high-level phenomena, like the production of art, incredibly difficult to study via reductive methodologies. Part 2 presents case studies that reflect consilience in practice in particular fields of study: culture, religion, morality, and literature and oral traditions. While part 1 is interesting from a rhetorical...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,006
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,100
Tête enseignante GPT0,404
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueModern fiction studiesMême sujetInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine SystemsTravaux en français237 207