Edward O. Wilson's book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge is his pet project. A well-established scientist, Wilson started noticing a disturbing trend among the members of the scientific community; they would not make comparisons between their own field of study and others. For example, a scientist studying early pre-homonids would not look to a philosopher to explain the development of the brain even though the philosopher may be able to provide her with valuable insight into what trait changes to expect in the development of the brain across evolution. Wilson determined to write a book -- this book -- in response to this close-minded perspective of which he became increasingly aware.
Basically Wilson's thesis boils down to a desire for people to rely upon the constancy and organization of the universe. This perspective was expressed through the concept of rationality during the Enlightenment Era. People started returning to the idea that everything, every force or bit of matter in the universe, can be explained because it is following certain constant principles. Expanding on this idea a bit, Wilson offers the idea that the entire universe functions according to a simple set of laws which are repeated in all different fields. So a mathematic principle must also be reflected in religion and art and so on so that the entire world is consistent and orderly -- rational.
Born of a disgust for the combative nature of the scientific community toward other fields of study, Consilience is easily accessible for any audience. Wilson writes in a simplified many, free of the majority of scientific jargon present in his other writings. He is trying to reach as vast an audience as possible because his arguments are universally applicable. In fact he essentially explains his conviction in writing the book near the end in his discussion of ethics. Wilson believes ethics is the most fascinating field of study and the one which would most benefit the others if its principles were applied to them. To Wilson a scientific discovery is meaningless if the scientist has not followed sound, true ethical principles in making it. He concludes by sort of teasing that he will pursue ethics as they manifest naturally in psychology in order to make sense of certain biological and evolutionary phenomena.
