Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:05:31 — 115.0MB)
Discussing Lynda Walsh’s book Scientists as Prophets: A Rhetorical Genealogy (2013) with the author, focusing on Robert J. Oppenheimer. We also read a speech from 1950 he gave called “The Encouragement of Science.”
What is the role of the science adviser? Should scientists just “stick to the facts,” or can only someone with technical knowledge make decisions about what to actually do? After leading the atomic bomb project during WWII, Oppenheimer thought that scientists needed to become politicians themselves to make sure that the power of technology wasn’t abused. His views about openness (sharing weapons tech with other governments) didn’t go over well with the Eisenhower administration, and he was stripped of his security clearance.
Lynda’s book is not philosophy, exactly, but about rhetoric. Her thesis is that the social role of preacher-scientists like Oppenheimer is comparable to that of ancient prophets like the Oracle at Delphi: they serve to bring about political certainty by providing knowledge inaccessible to ordinary citizens. Insofar as we can’t ourselves analyze the data, we’re taking them on faith as authorities.
Lynda tries to get Mark, Seth, and Dylan to talk about the difference between philosophy and rhetoric. There’s some talk of Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse-Tyson, Rachael Carson, Stephen Jay Gould, and others. Listen to Lynda’s introduction and get more information about the topic, as well as Lynda’s book.
End song: “Request Denied,” by Mark Lint, recorded in spurts between 2000 and now.
Please support the podcast by becoming a PEL Citizen or making a donation.
Thanks to Corey Mohler for the picture of Oppenheimer.
folks may be interested in the “cosmopolitical” work of the philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers (http://threerottenpotatoes.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/stengers2011_pleaslowscience.pdf)
the closely related work of http://bruno-latour.fr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter may be our leading “prophet” (and profit-driven) scientist (outside of the cyber/engineering world) and a total salesman/entrepreneur who seems as sold on his own genius and the markets as others may have been believers in Demos.
Hi DMF–Venter is fascinating! Steven Shapin addresses VCs like Venter in The Scientific Life, a recent and outstanding book on late-modern scientific ethos.
Hi Lynda, thanks for pitching in here @ PEL and for your reply, been following Shapin off and on since his Leviathan and the Air-Pump days and will certainly try and find the book, if you haven’t already give Paul Rabinow’s work in gengineering a look:
http://www.anthropos-lab.net/network/individuals/rabinow
Venter, at least in his public appearances/writings is a scary scary man, so confident beyond anything backed by experience/evidence and so dismissive of criticism, better to think of him in the vein of the entrepreneur-pitchmen of Silicon Valley than say academic lab-life and with all of the drastic government cuts to basic science we are in the midst of committing he looks like the face of the future, denying the threats of the anthropocene and all as he (and we dragged with him) goes…
Oppenheimer wasn’t chosen for his rhetoric, he was chosen for his abilities to communicate and explain complex science. Rhetoric is about the “swaying” of opinion.
Hi LifeFormBri, thanks for listening to the podcast. It’s funny–to me your comment reads, “Oppenheimer wasn’t chosen for his rhetoric, he was chosen for his rhetoric…” b/c I would equate “rhetoric” and “ability to communicate effectively and explain complex science.” This equation is well in line with the majority of theoretical definitions of rhetoric. From what rhetorician or philosopher are you getting the definition of rhetoric as “swaying opinion”? Sounds a bit like Plato in the Gorgias, but that’s just one side of Plato’s rhetoric; you have to read the Phaedrus to get the full picture of what role he ultimately assigned to rhetoric in the formation of the soul.
Thanks, Lynda. I’ll try reading Phaedrus.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Phaedrus
Great discussion. This video (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie8.shtml) captures Oppenheimer’s deep concern with the nuclear bomb and his knowledge of the Hindu scripture (as mentioned in the episode) . He remarked poignantly after the test bombing,
“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.”
Also I wanted to remark on the notion that as a general proclivity, we as a society prefer the prophet ethos over the adviser ethos. It’s less work on our part to just trust and accept what an expert says instead of acquiring the skills to be able to understand the issues we are facing better, thoroughly analyze contradicting ideas and scrutinize government decisions better. Along these lines, the prophetic ethos is in stark disagreement with the values of science so “Scientists as Prophets” sounds ridiculous at face value.
Hi Tobi, thanks for listening. I completely agree that we’re willing to cede authority in public debate to prophets b/c it’s less work and less responsibility if things go wrong (“but they TOLD us to do it…”). I wonder about the feasibility of your average Joe or Josephine understanding climate modeling well enough to judge the validity of IPCC reports; I’d like to think it’s possible, for sure, but I have my doubts. I also agree that “scientists as prophets” sounds ridiculous…until you look more carefully at what prophets really do and more carefully at how the role of the “scientist” (natural philosopher) came to be carved out in the 17th century. Then, it’s not so ridiculous, at least for scientists that step into a science-advising role; and I’m certainly not the first scholar to say so–that honor would have to go to Max Weber, and after him, Robert Merton, Ralph Lapp, Simon Schaffer, Thomas Lessl, and Steven Shapin. BTW I think we’re on the same page: I would never claim that scientists at work in their labs or talking to each other are behaving like prophets….
I wonder if Lynda Walsh’s thesis can speak to this new book’s conceit, a data-driven approach to making federal laws: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/using-numbers-based-approach-end-political-gridlock-moneyball-government/#transcript
I immediately thought of this podcast after watching this news piece tonight. Seems like a by-the-numbers law-making norm could direct you any number of ways, but maybe our philosophical bearings will ultimately determine how these abstract data points will be interpreted and/or implemented?
Any chance this book will be in Kindle format? I really enjoyed the discussion from the podcasts, but the cost of the book is sky-high! Sorry.
Kevin
Hi Kevin–
Thanks for listening. The book is available as an e-book but not very widely; I’m working with Oxford on this. Right now, the best deal appears to be at the Google Play store (they have their own app for Android or iOS) at $19.24. Blackwells also has it, but it’s more expensive.
Best,
Lynda
Lynda,
Thank you so much for responding. I’m still listening to the podcast and I find it really interesting. I loved the comments about Entrepreneurial prophets. This reminded me of Max Weber’s work on the Protestant Work Ethic, and how the ethos of religion is disguised in secular clothes. I forget who started that thread, but I really liked it.
couldn’t the ethos of religiosity (including cults of personality, totems&taboos, etc) simply be an aspect of the broader human evolutionary tendencies of/to socialization?
As I ruminate on the discussion of this episode, I am inspired to postulate, if I may be so bold, the following:
It’s not necessarily WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.
Reality is not made of matter. Reality is made of what matters.
I see the links between how some economists and some of the scientists discussed, use prophetic rhetoric. I hope Episode 123 (Amartya Sen & FA Hayek) touches upon this notion.
Mark, Seth, and Dylan, from my perspective, discussions like this one are exemplary. Those of us without a philosophy background can really engage the subject matter. Please find any excuse to have Lynda back. I felt I have learned a couple of things while being entertained by an intelligent, thought provoking conversation. I am sure with Wes added to the mix, the next conversation will be enticing-maybe we find out how Kant fits into all this. 🙂
Thanks PEL Podcasters. Thanks!
I’m a speechwriter among other things, so I found this one unusually interesting.
The podcast looked for a while at a speech by Oppenheimer and its ‘rhetorical’ format.
The discussion seemed to set up an odd distinction between an honest/bold/fearless prophet (who speaks ‘the truth’ with almost reckless disregard for the consequences) and a cynical prophet (who hedges his rhetoric for pragmatic or self-serving reasons).
But these are not the only options.
Imagine Oppenheimer had been given different drafts of the speech that conveyed the same strategic ideas in much the same ‘flow’ but with very different ‘tone’ and inclusiveness and varying nods of generosity towards those who might disagree with him on ‘transparency’ or process or whatever. He would have a clear choice on how he set about speaking on the day and what he wanted to achieve by it.
My namesake Steve Crawford gets it wrong (I think!):
“It’s not necessarily WHAT you say, but HOW you say it”
No.
“It’s not what you say – it’s what they HEAR”.
Of course how you say what you’re saying influences what they hear. But they may (and do) hear many things on many different levels simultaneously.
Some ‘rhetoric’ is like the soldier who charges madly at the enemy line throwing grenades, knowing that by blasting a hole in their defences others can pour through to victory, even though that soldier knows that he dies in the process.
Other rhetoric is more circumspect but not necessarily less effective.
On the other hand, suicidal charges have a an unnerving effect on the opposition: “These people are crazier than we can ever cope with!” That’s part of the rhetorical logic of ISIS and other Islamist fanatics.
It’s possible to give a speech that is frank and challenging and unpopular but nonetheless gracious and signals that you want to stay in the game.
It’s also possible to give one that everyone knows is so deliberately confrontational and ‘extreme’ that you show that you really WANT to burn your bridges and get excluded from the game.
There is nothing more principled about the latter speech. Its ‘honesty’ may merely be naivety or affectation, or simply a smug way to avoid real responsibility for the hard work of patient persuading and lobbying.
If Oppenheimer wanted to make military weapons research more transparent and ‘democratic’, he failed spectacularly. He might have done better to be less ‘prophetic’ and more conciliatory. And to distance himself from Soviet communism, whose values and practices were the far opposite of anything he claimed to believe himself.