Via Eric Rauchway (of The Edge of the American West, but guest-blogging at Crooked Timber), here is a list of the Top 100 Public Intellectuals, as put together by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. (You can vote for your top five.) Here are the natural scientists they’ve chosen to include:
- Richard Dawkins, biologist, author
- Jared Diamond, biologist, historian
- Neil Gershenfeld, physicist, computer scientist
- James Lovelock, environmental scientist
- Lee Smolin, physicist
- Harold Varmus, medical scientist
- J. Craig Venter, biologist, entrepreneur
- E.O. Wilson, biologist
Bjørn Lomborg is also on the list, but I don’t count him as a natural scientist — Sunita Narain is also a close call, but seems to fall more on the activism side than pure environmental science. Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker would also be there if you classified linguistics as a natural science. I also didn’t include economists, who are certainly social scientists in my classification. And V.S. Ramachandran I counted as more of a psychologist. This is a thankless task.
Note that the list is concerned with public intellectuals — people who have influenced the wide-ranging public discussion in some substantial way — so there’s no point in wondering why Lee Smolin is there but not Ed Witten. You are, however, allowed to wonder why there aren’t more physicists over all, and whether physicists should be blaming themselves or shaking impotent fists of rage at the selection committee. Either way, those biologists are kicking our butts.
I do find it mildly amusing that there seems to be an increasing amount of “biology envy” amongst physicists these days – something of a reversal
of fortunes.
As for translating a physicists “deep knowledge of physics” into public life, quite a few seem to have done a very good job of it – John Barrow (disclaimer – he was my PhD supervisor), Paul Davies, Stephen Weinberg, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Feynman, Dyson ……
Translating biology for consumption in public life is a far harder job than some here seem to think. Everybody (including quite a few physicists) has their own
pet ideas about biology – it’s something they’ve directly experienced every day of their lives. Consequently, there’s a great deal of misconception that has to be dealt with.
I would hazard a guess (without any evidence apart from personal experience) that the general public’s knowledge and understanding of modern biology is at a similar level to their understanding of modern physics. So, putting either into the public realm is a difficult task.
I think part of being a “public intellectual” is the willingness to take public stands on issues that you aren’t really a trained expert on – often issues where the very notion of expertise is suspect, like politics. But, you have to be an expert on something, or people think you’re just another loudmouth.
Obviously the list depends sensitively on how one defines “public intellectual.” I don’t gather from the list that one must be a renegade. In this case, I’m very surprised the list excludes
Stephen Hawking
After all, how many of these folks have been on the Simpsons! Hawking’s book may have sold more copies than any other person’s on this list… I say ‘may have’ because I didn’t check but I’m under the impression that “A Brief History…” was a fantastic best seller, breaking all kinds of records. Furthermore, Hawking has come to symbolize the esoteric genius to the general public, even if we physicists think maybe some other people deserve as much or more attention in that regard.
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
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.
e.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not you particularly Sean, just various voices on this blog.
Another oversight Cornell West
e.
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.
Not to mention Bonk.
But A Brief History of Time, The Elegant Universe, The First Three Minutes — these are all pretty cool titles.
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.
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….:)
Is there an anglo-saxon obsession for lists ?
Pardon my being French, I don’t understand the point of it.
Maybe someone can explain.
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.
Only one computer scientist?
I thought the medium was the message.
How about Carver Mead?
negentropyeater writes:
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.
Pingback: Not Even Wrong » Blog Archive » This and That
Neil deGrasse Tyson
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.