|
When scientists become activists (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| glass |
| god is dog spelled backwards !:eek: |
|
|
| Lira |
Some of the criticism in this thread is quite interesting (and I lol'd @ Mikey's reply :p). I do find their activist good, but you guys are showing exactly what worries me...
I don't really want to focus on Dawkins all that much, but on what he's been able to do as an "activist". Indeed, his attacks against religion might be somewhat flawed, but it's a reaction against the intelligent design movement, which played a minor role in the science wars by the end of the last century. He's being able to show the other side of the coin to the general public (although, unfortunately, he does seem to be "the other side of the coin", being as open-minded as the people he condemns). But, thanks to him, this does become "a debate", rather than an attack that faces no retort.
Chomsky too faces a lot of criticism, but he's had a deep impact on 20th century thought. It's even annoying, if you're into linguistics, because once you mention his name, people think you're going to debate politics (and, no, not all linguistics care that much about politics :p).
Here in Brasilia, there's another science activist, a sociolinguist called Marcos Bagno, and he also receives a lot of complaints about the inaccuracy contained in some of his books. However, he's been able to counter attack the influence of "grammarians" and reshape how some Brazilians view our language.
So, I'm really divided about this issue because, on the one hand, the flaws of their work is more easily noticed (being more obvious because they're in the limelight). But, on the other hand, they also raise more interest in their respective fields (I've become more interested in genetics thanks to Dawkins), and the more attention science receives, the better I believe it is. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Richard Dawkins, who is primarily an ethologist and an evolutionary biologist has gained some notoriety disputing the merits of religion. Noam Chomsky, a linguist, has been quite popular among fans of politics after opposing the war in Vietnam. What Dawkins and Chomsky have in common is the fact that both of them are now famous for an activism that is not related (directly) to their academic studies.
Do you approve of this? Are academics more reliable and insightful than, let's say, journalists and media people in general? Should academics leave university and fight "more concrete" causes?
My opinion on this is naturally biased (having been sucked into the academic sphere and being a rebel at heart :p), so I'd like to hear some of your criticism first :) |
the biggest concern from me, is that academics can often lost sight of the people they're writing for. A really talented/accomplished writer can write for all audiences, if of course the point is to make a mark outside academia. I think dawkins does this really well, he makes good points and compelling arguments without it being too high-brow and out of the reach of most people.
Chomsky on the other hand gets quite complicated, which is why I havent read that much of his, even though I think he is awesome.
To answer your question: what's the point in just being an academic intellectual if you can influence the "real" world too? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
As dangerous as any televangelist who has ever existed. Maybe worse. |
absolute nonsense. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Academics, like any person with an agenda is trying to sell something.
It's your job to figure out how good of a sell it is. Good academics will present a good case. Great ones debunk opposing views like Jesus casting out demons out of hookers for fun. Bad ones try to peddle whatever just because they have a ph.d.
I'm always shocked at how many ph.d are so clueless. Worse, bigoted, ignorant and prejudiced and stubborn. |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
hmmm, well Einstein did call for a unification of all nations into a World Government after the end of World War 2. He also ended his life an activist for global nuclear disarmament.
but he's an idiot right?
I don't think he ever really denounced Germans, but he did many subtle things to suggest that Germans and the country of Germany were not to be forgiven for their treatment of Jews. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| You would think people like Dawkins are an exception to the rule when it comes to academics making an impact on the real world. But you would be surprised to learn how many academics actually run various aspects of the real world. If you look into the US administrations, you will see that people who actually run the show (a step or two below the political bosses) are usually either lawyers or university professors ! These people are the think tank to the nation. They help formulate policies, implement them and are often heads of powerful non-government organizations (Ben Bernanke, the chairman of Federal Reserves is a tenure track professor at Princeton). A professor at my school was for a few years, a deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Energy. You will find a number of such examples. The point is, that a lot of scientists are very active in real world. It's just that you don't notice them. Some like Dawkins get recognition because their professional interests overlap with issues that are controversial and subject to media attention. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
You would think people like Dawkins are an exception to the rule when it comes to academics making an impact on the real world. But you would be surprised to learn how many academics actually run various aspects of the real world. If you look into the US administrations, you will see that people who actually run the show (a step or two below the political bosses) are usually either lawyers or university professors ! These people are the think tank to the nation. They help formulate policies, implement them and are often heads of powerful non-government organizations (Ben Bernanke, the chairman of Federal Reserves is a tenure track professor at Princeton). A professor at my school was for a few years, a deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Energy. You will find a number of such examples. The point is, that a lot of scientists are very active in real world. It's just that you don't notice them. Some like Dawkins get recognition because their professional interests overlap with issues that are controversial and subject to media attention. |
but most in the bush admin are profs or lawyers from jerry falwells uni which isnt even a top tier school| |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| I said, people who do the real work, not their political bosses. |
|
|
| distant |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
...and belief that science will indeed prove these yet unproven theories and ideas true is, in my opinion, not all that far from religious "faith." |
Are you referring to established systems of faith such as Christianity, or spirituality in general? If the former, then I guess an invisible pink unicorn is just as credible as any science? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by distant
Are you referring to established systems of faith such as Christianity, or spirituality in general? If the former, then I guess an invisible pink unicorn is just as credible as any science? |
can it be both pink AND invisible? :tongue2 |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by distant
Are you referring to established systems of faith such as Christianity, or spirituality in general? If the former, then I guess an invisible pink unicorn is just as credible as any science? |
I mean any unprovable fundamental presupposition about the way the universe works.
In that sense, I guess my response would fall under the category of "the latter." |
|
|
|
|
