Comments on: Public Intellectuals

By: Chanda

Chanda — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:28:13 +0000

I have to second Neil deGrasse Tyson. And Stephen Hawking. I have found Brian Greene to be sort of orthogonal to my taste (stylistically), but I can see how compelling arguments for him could be made.

As for mathematicians, Ian Stewart has written a number of wonderful books on mathematics for the public that have sold fairly well. I don’t see his name on the list, however, which is too bad. Pity he hasn’t stirred up enough controversy to have the press banging down his door. (sarcasm)

Anyway, it sounds like this list was more about who is in fashion and less about who has made substantive lasting contributions to discourse in and out of the academy.

By: Orion

Orion — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:36:39 +0000

Neil deGrasse Tyson

By: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » This and That

Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » This and That — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:10:52 +0000

[...] Carroll and various of his anonymous commenters are upset that Lee Smolin made it onto a list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals, with some suggesting that Kaku deserves to be there [...]

By: John Baez

John Baez — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:58:58 +0000

negentropyeater writes:

Is there an anglo-saxon obsession for lists ?

I don’t know if the obsession for lists is “Anglo-Saxon” - I would have thought it was American. Think of Dave Letterman’s “top ten” lists, or Irving Wallace’s The Book of Lists.

The best thing about lists is that they’re good for starting discussions, often involving what was left off the list.

By: John Merryman

John Merryman — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:16:08 +0000

Only one computer scientist?

I thought the medium was the message.

How about Carver Mead?

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:28:21 +0000

negentropyeater, obsession with lists is said to be “anal-retentive”, to use a term that is officially a clinical category despite the snicker factor. The Anglo-Saxon-Teutonic culture is supposed to be rather anal-retentive, especially due to Calvinist influence FWIW. As for scientists being said not to have much influence or to be widely read, well, they are more read than philosophers qua philosophers are. Who can now name modern equivalents of Bertrand Russel, Heidegger, not to mention Wittgenstein, or Kant, Hume etc? Sure Dennett is on the list, but he’s a hack on a hatchet job mission of denying even that conscious experience really exists etc.

By: negentropyeater

negentropyeater — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:20:24 +0000

Is there an anglo-saxon obsession for lists ?
Pardon my being French, I don’t understand the point of it.
Maybe someone can explain.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:18:44 +0000

If self-promotion and half-baked ideas are criteria, then Lee Smolin fits the list.
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, and Freeman Dyson obviously
belong on the list. If self-promotion and arrogance are criteria, then,
of course, James Hansen belongs; but if he makes the list, be sure to
place Wheeler’s student, Fred Singer there. Lovelock hasnt really appeared much
in public since GAIA. Wilson and Diamond are fine. Perhaps Brian Greene and Michio Kaku.
Sandy: Smolin is “a pretty good ambassador for physics” ??—didn’t you mean
“isn’t” . I assume that was a typo.
Hmmm and Jennifer Ouellette, of course….:)

By: Sandy

Sandy — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:09:18 +0000

The sad thing is, I doubt the list creators actually read the works of L. Smolin, or E.O. Wilson, or the couple other hard scientists. They probably just found the names that were most in the news the last year or so. It is a sad fact that scientists don’t affect the public discourse much, something we have discussed on CV. When scientists do talk to the press, the inevitable land mines and misunderstandings lead to lots of criticism from colleagues. The only solution is just to lighten up and be more open with less infighting. Stick together, knowing the press always gets it wrong in some way.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:22:39 +0000

Not to mention Bonk. But A Brief History of Time, The Elegant Universe, The First Three Minutes -- these are all pretty cool titles.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:49:02 +0000

The biologists get a boost, I think, from having catchier titles for their popular science books. Diamond wrote one called “Why is Sex Fun?” after all.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:50:58 +0000

Another oversight Cornell West

By: Sandy

Sandy — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:20:24 +0000

Not you particularly Sean, just various voices on this blog.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:56:24 +0000

Freeman Dyson should be on the list, and I’m not just saying that because he went to my school. He regularly opines outside his field.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:02:53 +0000

Speaking only for myself, I don’t think that I “give Lee Smolin s**t.” I disagree with him strongly on certain matters of substance, and I don’t think that his presentation of the state of play in modern theoretical physics is especially accurate. But I applaud him very sincerely for his efforts to talk to a wider audience — I very much wish that others would also do so.

By: Sandy

Sandy — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:19:42 +0000

I know you are not going to stop giving Lee Smolin s**t, but he is a pretty good ambassador for physics. I found his books to be upbeat and inclusive, and he makes science sound fun. I only read Three Roads to Quantum Gravity and The Life of the Cosmos, I agreed with most of his conjectures. But, even if you don’t, the way someone writes about science is more important (for the public discourse) than whatever theories they happen to have. Of course the list left off lots of great people.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:51:22 +0000

I tend to agree it’s a poor list, but I think events are largely driving inclusion. With Intelligent Design and “climate skepticism” running wild and loose, and a public who loves nothing more than a good fight, the roster isn’t that surprising. “String Wars” round out the fascination with controversy.

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:29:28 +0000

Once I found out that Hawking wasn’t on the list (it never occurred to me to check! - then I saw late comments and found Blake’s early lament), I was shocked! How can it be? Any theories? We should write to them to complain?

By: Elliot

Elliot — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:02:51 +0000

An interesting (and true) story. At a physics symposium around 98-99 (The Pritzker Symposium on Inflationary Cosmology) Stephen Hawking was there. During a break I was standing nearby and he was emailing Al Gore re: climate change.

By: Professor R

Professor R — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:22:38 +0000

Hi Sean,
I too am surprised at the omission of Steven Hawking, given the criteria stated.

I think John Baez’s comment is very interesting and I agree. Ideally, a public intellectual should be an expert on something, and also have the willingness to take public stands on issues outside their expert field - too often the very best minds will not take the latter step, which is why I admire scientists like Dawkins (statements on religion) and Hawking (statements on climate change)…Cormac