Why Aren't There Public Intellectuals From The Field of Natural Sciences?

  • Thread starter Thread starter realism877
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Natural
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the perceived lack of public intellectuals from the field of natural sciences compared to social sciences. Participants explore the roles and visibility of scientists in public discourse, particularly regarding societal issues and their impact on public understanding of science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that notable figures like Richard Dawkins and Albert Einstein can be considered public intellectuals from the hard sciences.
  • There is a call for more public intellectuals in the natural sciences, with some expressing skepticism about the relevance of scientists' opinions outside their fields.
  • One participant questions the importance of public intellectuals, arguing that their role may not be significant.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for scientists to engage with the public on critical issues, such as alternative medicine and education, to foster informed decision-making.
  • Concerns are raised about the public's recognition of scientists, suggesting that only "pop" scientists like Michio Kaku might be acknowledged by the general populace.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the importance of public intellectuals from the natural sciences or whether the current representation is adequate. Multiple viewpoints regarding the necessity and recognition of such figures remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express differing opinions on the relevance and impact of public intellectuals, indicating a lack of agreement on their significance in societal discourse.

realism877
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Most public intellectuals who are critics of society and speak out about their knowledge often come from the social science realm. Why aren't there any from the hard sciences?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ryan_m_b said:
You mean like Dawkins?


Yeah, he is one.
 
realism877 said:
Yeah, he is one.

and the rest I added
 
Einstein was a pacifist and strived for more peaceful methods. So he's also one, I think. Grothendieck was a die-hard pacifist too...
 
micromass said:
Einstein was a pacifist and strived for more peaceful methods. So he's also one, I think. Grothendieck was a die-hard pacifist too...


Yes, Einstein fits the criteria for an intellectual. What about Buckminster Fuller?
 
So have we established that the OP is resolved now?
 
ryan_m_b said:
So have we established that the OP is resolved now?


I'm just saying that we need more.
 
realism877 said:
I'm just saying that we need more.
Why? Just because they work in a certain field doesn't mean their thoughts on things outside of their field have any meaning.
 
  • #10
That's all we need is another Kaku.
 
  • #11
I don't think "public intellectuals" are really important. I mean what's the point?
 
  • #12
kraphysics said:
I don't think "public intellectuals" are really important. I mean what's the point?

To allow the public to feel and be involved in the important intellectual fields that are so important for their country. When media individuals, politicians and businesses are debating issues like alternative medicine, creationism in schools etc it's important to have intellectual individuals and groups that can engage the public on these issues and be trusted so that they can make an informed decision.

It's naive to think that the public should or would accept the faceless announcements of people they have never met on issues that haven't been explained.
 
  • #13
ryan_m_b said:
To allow the public to feel and be involved in the important intellectual fields that are so important for their country. When media individuals, politicians and businesses are debating issues like alternative medicine, creationism in schools etc it's important to have intellectual individuals and groups that can engage the public on these issues and be trusted so that they can make an informed decision.

It's naive to think that the public should or would accept the faceless announcements of people they have never met on issues that haven't been explained.
The problem is that the general public wouldn't recognize any of these scientists unless they were a "pop" scientist like kaku, and even then, the majority of the public would not recognize him or his name.
 

Similar threads

Insights Is Science an Authority? How to View Announcements from Scientists
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
8K
Are true geniuses extinct?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Should the public know what you are thinking and concluding?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
How will public react if we discover life on another planet?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
RIP Andrzej Trautman (1933 - 2026), relativity and gravitational waves
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
474
News The US Digital Service, aka DOGE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Why do so many people hate science?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
Is it possible to make science as marketable as Engineering?
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K