The Neighborhood Project by David Sloan Wilson
Applying evolutionary studies to human politics? Socialised as a German scientist, I winced on the spot. But then, I began to read "The Neighborhood Project" - and became more than convinced. For years, the eminent evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson has embarked on adventurous quests to broaden evolutionary studies into classic humanities - working together with scholars of literature, education and religion. In the captivating, autobiographic parts of "The Neighborhood Project", he is explaining why - his father has been the great novelist Sloan Wilson, who remained deeply curious about human emotions and behaviors throughout his life. After decades of doing scientific studies on plants and animals, his son finally came home.
And this "coming home" should be taken literally: While the biologist worked and studied behaviors of various places and times, he remained almost ignorant of the very city he lived, loved and taught in: Binghamton, New York. In a range of good-natured descriptions, David Sloan Wilson is introducing the scientific colleagues and students who finally introduced him to the delicate web of evolved behaviors in his hometown.
Thus, the idea not only of studying but of improving city life by evolutionary sciences began to captivate the professor, his colleagues and students and it will captivate most readers. How did Binghamton evolve - and which effect does its history have on today's perceptions and lives? Why and where do people trust each other? How could education be improved? What kind of projects could bring the people together into new and sustainable forms of cooperation?
David Sloan Wilson does not rest on theories to address these and many more questions. Drawing on the activities and interests of his colleagues and especially students at the interdisciplinary Binghamton EvoS (Evolutionary Studies), Wilson and his teams did real empirical work, bringing science and communal practice into fruitful dialogue.
"The Neighborhood Project" is not another variant of social darwinism, arguing for political action from half-understood biology. It is taking the opposite approach: Accepting the rights and duties of democratic societies to find their values, evolutionary studies are presented as a way to see chances and problems from a scientific and respectful perspective. For example, figuring that holiday decorations could be a good proxy for civic health, Wilson and his students explored Binghamton neighborhoods on and Christmas to see which neighborhoods were lighted most decoratively. “On a clear night,” the evolutionary biologist writes, “I could probably measure it from an aerial photograph: the more nurturing neighborhoods actually glowed more brightly during the holiday season.” In fact, "The Neighborhood Project" is not only about perceiving Binghamton, NY from a different angle - it will change the way you will see the community you live in!
And what about religion?
Starting in the Introduction, David Sloan Wilson is addressing the issue of scientific and religious "knowledge", opting for a scientific perspective on our world and all living beings. But throughout this book, he remains true to the evolutionary perspective of religion he worked out in "Darwin's Cathedral": Wilson is not bashing religion(s) or the religious, but he is perceiving and respecting religion(s) as part of the evolutionary history and traits shaping our lives, discussing the thoughts of evolutionary theists such as Teilhard de Chardin on the way. He is bringing a message home: No religious person should be afraid to get a better understanding of evolution - and no evolutionist should be afraid to get a better understanding of religion.
"The Neighborhood Project" is one of the rare scientific books that is not only informative and captivating, but also wise and moving. I enjoyed every page and read some chapters twice for the sheer delight. One wants to join the evolutionary quests on the spot, bringing evolutionary sciences and our troubled societies into new heights of dialogue. This author is a scientist and a novelist, indeed...
Printview
I am looking forward to receiving my copy of this book from Amazon and will be very interested to read about David's thoughts on scientific/ religious 'knowledge' in particular.
In the meantime, I have expressed my current take on this issue in two comments on the blog 'Evolution: This View of Life'. I would welcome an opportunity to test my views against reasoned counter-arguments and, for convenience, I will reproduce my views here in the hope of generating discussion. I am sure that I have much to learn about the religious view on this issue in particular.
It is surprising, and just a little scary, that a majority of the surveyed scientists saw both religion and science as " --- valid avenues of knowledge". The definition of 'knowledge' is radically different in the two domains. Scientific knowledge involves; the scientific method, observation, hypothesis formulation, testing, evidence, peer-review, on-going scrutiny and frequent revision. In complete contrast, the acceptance of religious knowledge into the canon is largely dependent on scripture, the earthly religious authorities and faith. Scientific knowledge is subject to a strict epistemology that strives to be as objective as possible; religious knowledge cannot make a similar claim.
Perhaps scientists who are believers attempt to keep both 'balls' in the air by using the weak ego justification that religion and science are just two (equally) valid avenues of knowledge.
Since the epistemological rules for entry into its "avenues" are so different, science tends to deny the validity of religious 'knowledge'. But there would be no necessary disagreement if science and religion concerned themselves with mutually exclusive domains. Do they?
Well, science is concerned with 'what is', 'what was' and how things came to be the way they are. It does not concern itself with either the normative or the prescriptive. Religion, on the other hand does concern itself with both the normative and the prescriptive. So far, so mutually exclusive. However, problems have arisen and continue to exist because religious scripture does indeed pontificate about 'what is', 'what was' and how things came to be the way they are. Although some religions have recently tended to play down these encroachments into scientific territory by explaining that the poetry and mythology of the scriptures were relevant to and necessary in another age, there is one such encroachment that is shot through the body of knowledge of the religions and cannot be rationalized away. I refer to the super-empirical.
The domains of science and religion are not completely mutually exclusive; there is overlap and, since science cannot accept the 'epistemology' of religion, such as it is, there will always be conflict in this area of overlap.
Celebrate socializing technology
Be brave, John, and credulous.
Religion developed in a very different era under very different circumstances. Science has the benefit of addressing an already prepared audience while religion had to prepare all the foundations while inventing itself and its audience, in the process. As such, it carries with it all of the foundational baggage that science can simply assume as preexisting.
Knowledge is the same, science or religion, regardless of its clothing. Less obvious, perhaps within religion as its development path was so different, its initial target audience so different, its presentation is likewise different.
The core of discerning knowledge is testing, and both systems test their beliefs, but religion is necessarily normative and prescriptive as it serves a critical, foundational function for human society where the science you describe developed as an optional albeit useful pastime within the Catholic universities of Europe, to further unravel the grand mysteries of God. To build upon existing knowledge, not supplant it.
Cannon is but a fraction of the knowledge accumulated within the culture, the wisdom of religion, but I would prefer to argue results as a truer measure (and a necessary exercise if one is desirous of unwrapping religions’ knowledge). Compare, contrast the haves’ with the have-not’s: Human communities without (basic) religion (or spiritualism) have been extinct for about 30,000 years, only those with have survived, expanded their habitat and their population – Darwin’s ultimate test. Human communities with organized religion (support priests, build temples) have grown cities, built empires and in some cases universities and particle colliders. Religion harbors the knowledge to motivate people to civil, productive behavior. Science could never exist until religion learned to reign in our beast and allow humanity to emerge.
You write "Knowledge is the same, science or religion, regardless of its clothing."
Not at all. Knowledge that is worthy of the name doesn't get 'clothed' by its domain. Each domain, be it science, religion or any of the arts, is like a city. For each, an epistemology can be identified which acts as a gate-keeper which either grants or denies freedom of entry into that particular city.
In my last post, I have contrasted the rules for entry into the city 'Science' with those for entry into the city 'Religion'. I have suggested that the fact that one has been based on reason while the other has been based on authority/ faith has resulted in the historic schism between these domains.
Recently, some of us with an interest/ expertise in both science and religion have began to explore religion and religiosity using the scientific method. As I understand it, this is the rationale, for example, for this website and the relatively new discipline called The Psychology of Religion.
In order to discuss these matters effectively together we need to agree that the scientific method is the appropriate epistemology for our endeavours. Some of the posts I have read on this site would appear to indicate that this is not understood/ accepted by all contributors making it necessary to thrash out the issue.
Of course, if I am wrong in this matter I'm sure Michael will correct me.
Your ‘city’, my ‘clothing’. God, some have suggested, is knowledge without form. We humans, however, must house or clothe our knowledge in some medium least it slip as noise into the ether. That medium, simply by its existence, bends and colors that knowledge to some degree. The scientific method is notional and something we teach our children as a mental exercise, and has little to do with how knowledge is acquired, even within science – though I have no objection to it, I fear it too limiting.
The knowledge of an automotive engineer is veiled beneath the bonnet, neither is it exposed in the advertising, but it is revealed on the road. The purpose of science is to make knowledge as transparent as possible. That was never the purpose of the automotive engineer (proprietary advantage), nor of religion.
My argument with you is your continued insistence of accepting the claims of religious fundamentalists as representing the ‘knowledge’ of religion. Christian theologians have rejected the historicity of the canonical texts for at least 1600 years. That you can ‘disprove’ them today is really old news, and not but a straw man exercise. To evaluate the knowledge of the engineer or artisan, you must test the product, not the claims for the product. To recognize the knowledge of religion, you must first understand its purpose, its role in the world.
You write "The scientific method is notional and something we teach our children as a mental exercise, and has little to do with how knowledge is acquired, even within science"
Can you justify this statement? As it stands, it would appear to be nonsense and not a reasonable basis for discussion my friend.
Read through a couple of links:
http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf, MYTH 4: A GENERAL AND UNIVERSAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD EXISTS.
http://www.eskimo.com/...miscon/miscon4.html#meth, (just scroll down a bit):
. . . ‘Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done.’
. . . Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, misleads generations of students, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "
This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration
I googled ‘myth scientific method’ and got 2 million hits. There is no formula for how science gets done.
The scientific method does not set out a rigid procedure for 'doing' science as you have assumed. It's purpose is to ensure that scientific propositions have been thoroughly tested and that empirical work can be reviewed and replicated by other scientists. Consistent counter-evidence results in either modification or rejection. The method ensures that the accepted body of scientific knowledge is always supported by relevant evidence and is as objective as possible.
Religious 'knowledge' cannot claim a similar respect for objectivity.
Hence, an objective evaluation of religions’ ‘knowledge’ could be conducted under the auspices of science. But that was never the disagreement before us, rather it was: What is religions’ knowledge (and is it appropriately tested). Again, I would not turn to religion itself for the answer.
This seems to be pretty interesting project actually, I do like the idea of being. I think at this moment we are kinda trapped in the social box of our communities. And those communities can vary from your neighbors, school mates, co-workers and up to how you communicate within your family. I think we are in need of some kind of fresh view on all these things around us. Maybe your project will evolve into something helpful.