Benjamin Franklin, Civic Scientist 155
Guinnessy writes "Neal Lane, the ex-science advisor to President Clinton, has written an article in Physics Today magazine, that explains why he thinks Benjamin Franklin, was an early American prototype of a civic scientist, i.e. someone who would 'probably address many of today's concerns with wisdom, practicality, and a deep sense of civic responsibility.' Ironically the same issue has an example of a modern day civic scientist, a profile of Richard Meserve, a physicist who became a lawyer. Interesting stuff."
Science & Law a common mix down under (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Science & Law a common mix down under (Score:2)
Re:Science & Law a common mix down under (Score:2)
Re:Science & Law a common mix down under (Score:3, Insightful)
Having passed through the law school experience, I am positive it has general value. The dusty cases and statutes are not really that important - they merely provide background and material for instruction/practice on thinking. Law school is not about being given answers and memorizing them - the Socratic method, in which an instructor teaches by asking questions of students until the students stumble on the answers themselves, is both intense and effective. And very painful/humiliating at times.
For
Re:Science & Law a common mix down under (Score:2)
I do think there is some value in just teaching people to rea
Autobiography (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead & rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing" - Ben Franklin
Re:Autobiography (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Walter Isaacson -- author of the latest biography -- summed it up best when he suggested that Franklin's life and accomplishments are topics that should be revisited by biographers every ten years. If you haven't read a Franklin biography, pick one up. You will be surprised by how much his ideas about intellectual property would conform to the GNU while tolerating patents and copyrights.
Re:Autobiography (Score:2)
Ben can save us (Score:2)
Re:Ben can save us (Score:2)
Back in the old days, when news took days or weeks to reach the people, things like public identity, pr,ect were irrelevant.
Today, if a scientist changes to politics, he has to change his way of thinking from "rational scientist" to ">how to cheat the prople into voting me politician". It may not happen at one, but it will happen or he will fail.
And when it happened, he could have come from a totally diffrent backgrou
Re:Ben can save us (Score:1)
Mebbe if he could tell modern day Americans that they have their heads up their arses, they would listen...?
His Seven Great Virtues (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just glad to be reading something about a great man instead of a criminal, for once.
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:5, Insightful)
It all comes down to a dietary issue in the end.
Food, clothing and shelter.
Everything else is frills and frippery when it comes right down to it.
Now he was hardly a man who eschewed frills and frippery, but he always knew they were frills and frippery and kept things in some sort of perspective.
I'm not sure I would have found him likeable, although he was one of the most sought after dinner guests on more than one continent, but was clearly a remarkable man. In more modern times he would have been a candidate for multiple Nobels in science (electricity, the Gulf Stream and other discoveries) as well as the Peace Prize and multiple Pulitzers (Just for Poor Richard's alone, let alone his other writings) and lord knows what all awards.
And yet among his greatest accomplishments as an inventor in his own mind was a warm stove and a comfortable chair to put by it.
Add a table, bowl of fruit and a violin and you're set.
KFG
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
Such frippery!! Frills!!!
But yeah
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
-- Survival; Domination of self over all else (where sustainability is a vital prerequisite to this) -- thus we have predator-prey curves in nature (I'm sure an analogy with plants, archae, etc... can be made). At least domination (control) from a species perspective.
Domination of self (if partial) can lead to weaknesses. Therefore a non-dominate, yet mutable form would be preferable. Total domination of self would lead to stagnation, but it would de facto also lead to a non-
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
Even with "control", this generally seems as a second to total domination. It's just the fact that total domination/control has never happened (outside of a hypothetical God)..... I seem to be using a definition of "dominate" that is like a change of everything to the self, whereas "total control" would be the self having power over all else and excising the ability of all else to have power over it (even as much as the other being able to alter the self -- thus negating the
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
And also the other given, which I see all too often in todays politicized "science", and politics per se:
"...and they seek above all, these clambering apes, to get Power;- or the lever of Power, which is Money... How can I help it that Power likes to walk on
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
Difference between self as a process and self as a state. We are process, if a state dominates...from an antagonistic viral/bacterial perspective, too much stagnation leads to modif
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
If necessary (think turing machine/object library), different components can be rearranged for use against externals.
Vacuole???? Caged/segregated incorporation of an external (to be used if needed) w/o modifying the self?
Re:His Seven Great Virtues (Score:1)
KFG
Re:Where I live we have another name for them.. (Score:1)
Re:Where I live we have another name for them.. (Score:1)
Where are they now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where are they now? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where are they now? (Score:5, Informative)
He was, thus, condemned to become:
"the most ingenious scientist of his era rather than transcending into the pantheon of truly profound theorists such as Newton."
(Isaacson, "Benjamin Franklin, An American Life", Simon and Schuster, 2003)
Re:Where are they now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where are they now? (Score:2)
I also think a major problem is that people are more interested in voting for the winning side than voting for someone that will do a good job. Essentially that means almost everyone elected is from one of the two main parties and they were elected less because of what they'll do than bec
Re:Where are they now? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am attempting to make a point that isn't really politicaly biased, but I will talk about subjects I know about. Please try to look beyond my conservative slant for the points I am going to try to make.
You asked a really good question. Why is it that the only people that run for high
Re:Where are they now? (Score:1)
"...[Rush Limbaugh's] serious answer [as to why he would never run for the presidency] does cut to the heart of it. The job is entirely too demanding and it would require a compromise of his beliefs. Look how the conservatives treated Clinton, look how the liberals are treating Bush. It is a wonder that either one of those men got anything accomplished at all. It seems a rare day when someone isn't gunning for them"
Translation: Rush likes dishing it out, but isn't too sure he'd enjoy having to take it.
Re:Where are they now? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Sorry this is long, but it's late and I'm too tired to edit.]
People always bring up this "smart advisor" theory when discussing not-so-bright candidates, but I'm not sure I buy it.
Here's the flaw I see in it: incompetent people have been shown [apa.org] to be less capable not only of judging their own performance, but also of judging the performance of others.
You see this all the time when it comes to technical advisement. Some non-technical manager will think some consultant "really knows his stuff" when that consultant is really just spouting buzzwords or telling the manager what he wants to hear, and the consultant actually performs like a train wreck.
How is the incompetent candidate supposed to be able to judge who is competent among his potential advisors?
Maybe surrounding yourself with advisors that you agree with is not the best sign. And maybe you have to have a certain foundation of competence and be both willing and able to do the sort of critical thinking and analysis that distinguishes the truly competent advisors from the advisors that are just buttering you up.
Another interesting thing about the study linked above is that while the best performers tend to accurately judge how well they did in an absolute sense, they tend humbly to underestimate their own performance relative to everyone else.
/. and acting condescending to users turn out not to be so hot after all when it comes down to it.
/. for instance ;)
Perhaps that is because part of becoming competent is learning from your mistakes and pushing against your limits, which probably imparts a healthy sense of your own failings. In fact, some of the most impressively competent people I have met were, while confident, at the same time oddly humble -- perhaps because, while it seemed to me that they could do just about anything, they were more keenly aware of the vast depths of their field that they had yet to plumb.
At the same time, lots of the less-guruish but merely competent technical folks I see complaining bombastically on IRC or
Of course, the problem is that the blowhards are a lot more fun to listen to than the real gurus. Where's the fun in someone saying "emacs and vi are equally viable alternatives, and here are the cases in which each is best used"? We like people who make bold statements and who "stick to their ideals", even if it's only because they're too arrogant to consider that they might be wrong. We laugh today at "640k should be enough for anybody," but no one remembers what the other guy said.
If there were more geeks, and there such a thing as nationally-syndicated geek talk radio, those guys who hang out, start editor/distribution wars, and flame the newbies would probably get pretty high ratings, and people would probably call in and agree with them and take their turn to flame the newbies.
They'd be pretty popular, but they wouldn't necessarily be more competent. (Take
Maybe the problem isn't the spotlight or the low pay. Maybe the problem is that the world is really complicated, but we are attracted to people who see things in black-and-white. Maybe nobody wants to listen to the people who really understand things, because it's too complicated and they don't have the time. We like quick, pithy sound bites, even if they're totally off-base. Arnold is not popular because he has a firm grasp of the issues or because he's a loyal representative of his party, but because he's got some quick one-liners, and he's famous. We don't even care if some of the one-liners contradict the other ones, as long as they are funny.
When you look at it that way, coming back to the topic at hand, I can't imagine anything that would prepare you worse
Re:Where are they now? (Score:4, Insightful)
In my mind, this finding doesn't just invalidate the "comptetent advisors" theory, it also neatly answers the original poster's question as well. In a universal sufferage system, the incompetent are allowed to vote and they far outnumber the competent people and end up choosing a weaker candidate.
The problem of course, is extending the sufferage only to the competent. There's no good test to find these individuals, so we're sort of stuck with what we have. As Churchill once remarked: "Democracy is the worst form of government known to man, with the exception of all of the others."
Re:Where are they now? (Score:2)
Just asking people to name the major canidates and the referendums on the ballot for would make a big difference. People should at least have given some thought to voting before actually arriving at the polls. With some thought, I think a test could be made without discriminating against anyone unfairly or compromising the anonymity of voting.
historical myopia (Score:2)
reinterpretations and the human tendency to vilify/ deify others warps perceptions of time and places past
people always long for something long ago, forgetting how it was just as sucky as it is now at least
example? some of us might go "damn to be a teenager again, what glorious years of my life"
truth? your teenage years were some of your most awkward, painful times in existence
this is true for everyone
true of human nature
when you look at the founding fathers, you tur
Re:historical myopia (Score:2)
When it comes down to it, you have to consider these great leaders in the context of their times. Did many of the founding fathers own slaves? Yes. But so did most other wealthy people in the time. In this
Re:Where are they now? (Score:1)
Re:Where are they now? (Score:2)
We've got a president who is, at best, of averge intelligence, and whose greatest strength is something as plebian as business.
And besides his family history, that makes him very well suited to getting elected President. His training has been in raising money for oil exploration companies for twenty years. He's a great fund raiser.
Are they staying out of public service just because they're so damn disgusted by the whole syst
Re:Where are they now? (Score:1)
Why (Score:3, Interesting)
Its an interesting article though I would consider it somewhat naive. The majority of people dont care about science. Once the inventions and breakthroughs keep coming and their lives are made easier, safer etc. they will just say isn't science wonderful and carry on with their daily lives.
As for the political aspects I think (conspiracy theory here) that the political and legal systems are deliberately being made as obtuse as possible to prevent access by the public. Supposedly we get transparent government which basically means they might hold the odd, ultimately meaningless inquiry every now and then. Witness the current WMD fiasco for a classic example of political spin, distortion of facts and politicians doing as they please. The legal system in particular has been made ridiculously complex to the detriment of justice and the embellishment of lawyers.
It would be good if we could get more scientists, or engineers for that matter into political positions. They would bring a more balanced and rational perspective to many of the issues facing society today. Unfortunately politics is the art of compromise and we are all well aware what happens when we start to compromise on engineering and scientific projects (recent shuttle furore anyone). Scientists and Engineers are no more immune from this than politicians.
Again I think its an interesting article but naive to think that a visionary scientist, or even a bunch of scientists would somehow radically change our political and social landscape. Our current systems are a little bit too entrenched.
Re:Why (Score:1)
Yes, but Franklin has three advantages over the ancient Greeks:
1) He is documented. We know what he did, when he did it. The Greeks' few known activities are all hearsay.
2) He is modern. He has dealt with governments and countries like our governments an
Re:Why (Score:1)
some names to google:
Democritus Aristotle Heron Ptolemy
And even you should be familiar with Archimedes and Pythagoras.
Re:Urban legend or real smack? (Score:2)
What crack was the moderator on when this was modded offtopic? The comments made by kamapuaa are in no way offtopic in a discussion of Ben Franklin. Shame!
Re:Urban legend or real smack? (Score:1)
I find referces to smallpox blankets [fordham.edu]
What only could have been... (Score:2)
Re:What only could have been... (Score:2)
We're not evil because we don't like crap like that.
Its just plain boring.
Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Karl Marx (Score:1)
On a more practical level i quess that Josif Stalin was the ultimate civic engineer. He used to even get into tractor production and make little changes to the blueprints. The ultimate bureaucrat. Although i couldn't really call him a scientist, just an engineer/bureaucrat.
I think that we could forget about Marx now, what we really need is a new John Maynard Keynes. If socialism doesn't work, well, corporate welfare and unregulated markets suck too.
Google Science (Score:1)
Re:Google Science (Score:1)
And for today... (Score:3, Interesting)
He's helped create a marvel of technology and engineering, entirely for the public benefit...
The great people of yesteryear still exist today... they just aren't in public office.
Remember that Ben F was a rebel - the "powers that be" at the time was the British govt.
Re:And for today... (Score:1)
Re:And for today... (Score:2)
The issue is that politics in this country is too political to allow for innovation. That is, it is completely centered around compromise, while innovation is centered around progress, and the two are quite commnly conflicting ideas.
Linux is no marvel of technology (Score:2)
That is quite spin heavy and revisionist, ironic given the original topic.
Linux is no marvel of technology, it is a marvel of social interaction. Linux is yet another re-implementation of Unix made by folks studying previous implementations. That said it is likely to become the dominant Unix environment[1] not for technical or engineering reasons but for social reasons. The only revolutionary thing about Linux
Not Ironic (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think this is irony (or even a coincidence), I think it was planned, magazines generally have two or three themes for each issue, and this one had the theme of "civic scientists".
And no, it's not ironic that the poster used the word "ironically" incorrectly either.
Re:Not Ironic (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not Ironic (Score:1)
You're probably not a big fan of Alanis Morissette's use of the word irony, either. [brunching.com] :)
Franklin built himself on aphorisms, not science (Score:2, Insightful)
The one that particularly pisses me off is "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, welathy and wise."
It is a fact that this is completely contrary to the sleep requirements of human beings. Here was can see a good example of where Franklin was not a scientist at all,
Re:Franklin built himself on aphorisms, not scienc (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to be flamebait. The almanac was not his scientific legacy and wasn't even written with any pretence of contributing to science. Judging Franklin as a scientist on the basis of the almanac is like judging Newton on the basis of his theological writings.
The scientific legacy of Franklin was the "single fluid" theory of electricity. He was the first to hypothesize that electricity was a single conserved "fluid" instead of two fluids (corresponding to + and -). In fact, it was this hypothesis
Re:Franklin built himself on aphorisms, not scienc (Score:1)
1733 Du Fay finds that there are two types of electric charges, and that unlike charges attract while like charges repel
1745 The Leyden Jar is invented by Kleist and van Musschenbroek for storing electric charge
**Leyden Jar - The first device used to store electricity because it was believed that electricity was a fluid ("Leyden").
Your chronology completely ignores the debate between proponents of the two fluid theory and the one fluid theory. Du Fay was a proponent of the two fluid theory, as you
Re:TROLL, MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:2)
The study of sleep is something that he felt free to completely dismiss in favor of his own personal opinions on the matter. His opinions have been proven wrong, but I bet you ten to one you can ask people in the States wheth
Have you ever noticed? (Score:1, Flamebait)
It almost comes off as a political mad-lib where the key words included "science" and "franklin" and "civic".
Hehe (Score:1)
A physicist that became a lawyer
How proud his mother must be. Her son is the lowest form of life on earth.
Re:Hehe (Score:2)
Are you saying that Eben Moglen [columbia.edu], who defends the GPL [columbia.edu], is the lowest form of life?
I suppose all people involved with computers are also no better than the worst of them [toyokeizai.co.jp].
Anyway, if you must make a dig at lawyers - be funny. For example, "why do lawyers wear neckties
Simply saying all lawyers are evil is neither amusing, nor inciteful. It just makes you look bitter.
"What's the difference between a porquipine and two lawyers in Porsche?"
Re:Hehe (Score:1)
What the fuck? Are you dumb (that's a rethorical question, you clearly are)?
The point is that a physicist is someone who tries to (at least should have as a goal) unravel the deepest mysteries known to man, whereas a lawyer is just a fucking tool. A fucking flesh container who have memorized some fucking arcane texts, nothing else (oh, the successful lawyers lie more than the rest). If you convert from physicist to lawyer, then you're a despicable entity. Period.
Carl Sagan (Score:1)
For those among the slashdot readership who are not wholly familiar with Dr. Sagan's
TV series (Cosmos); it's worth buying on DVD cold.
He's written a great many books for the layperson. The last of which, Billions and Billions, approach
subjects such as religion, politics, environmental concerns, family planning, etc.
He was a member of NORML [norml.org], frequently spoke out against nuclear weapons production,
and was a d
Re:Carl Sagan (Score:1)
Sorry, I meant to say MODERN civic scientist.
I was by NO MEANS suggesting that Dr. Sagan was more exemplary as a "civic scientist" vis a vis Ben Franklin.
not by any stretch of the imagination...
-jcw
Re:Carl Sagan (Score:1)
Evidently... (Score:1)
Out of interest, the venerable man himself premiered on New Zealand television tonight, in the 100th episode of Southpark... coincidence?
Party animal Franklin (Score:1)
Wonderful Franklin quote from the article... (Score:1)
It's almost scary how appropriate that quote is today...
Re:Wonderful Franklin quote from the article... (Score:2)
It's almost scary how appropriate that quote is today
Study more real history and less web hysteria, that quote has been frighteningly appropriate for nearly every decade since the country began. Many political groups, ranging from the ACLU to the NRA, have been singing that song decades before there was a web to post DMCA violations to.
Ben.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course we can focus on a single aspect of his interests and be impressed (they are after all of his time), but things like he was a prolific, practical inventor but never sought a patent.. he argued (unsucessfully) for an anti-slavery clause to the constitution.. he was a nerd with great social skills.. he was first and foremost a printer and communicator; I'm sure he would be quite pleased with OSS and the internet.
In the political/civic arena, his wisdom and participation was sought after. Yes, everyone loves to quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." but his contribution to the design of the great seal of the US [greatseal.com]included the motto "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." Go figure. His son was Governor of New Jersey and a loyalist to King George.
The liberty bell is being moved [gophila.com] on Oct 9th!
As neat as Ben may have been... (Score:1)
Re:As neat as Ben may have been... (Score:3, Insightful)
As the present administration demonstrates, we need more alcoholic womanizers in office - hell, I can respect a womanizer. It's coke heads who fail to womanize who are dangerous to America.
Bush needs an intern
Ex-science advisor huh? (Score:1)
Re:Slow news day again. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so bad, I've seen worse.
I'm currently reading this book [blat.info], and so far I'm not that impressed. You may as well read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. It has just as much insight, with all of the whit. He was a nut. I hope I can be 1/4th the nut he was.
Re:You're thinking of Jefferson (Score:2)
For that matter is there evidence that the slaves weren't willing partners? (I never have actually studied the topic.) A man that is intelligent and powerful and literally your owner might appeal to certain types of women. Likewise I doubt any man alive has never dreamed of having a lustful and willing slave girl. Deny it if you want but that relationship is a dee
Re:You're thinking of Jefferson (Score:2)
Please do! [alt.com]
A man that is intelligent and powerful and literally your owner might appeal to certain types of women. Likewise I doubt any man alive has never dreamed of having a lustful and willing slave girl. Deny it if you want but that relationship is a deep part of human tradition and I doubt it's yet been bred out yet by our 'civilized' behavior.
Civilization is not about denying y
Re:You're thinking of Jefferson (Score:2)
I find it more amusing than anything for people to pretend a master/slave relationship. I guess if it works for you then great but I don't think it'd be a thrill for me as long as I knew it isn't real. I've wondered if computer sims might not help with such things eventually. Either by providing a virtual partner or better yet by being able to temporarily modify your mind so you can't remember it's a game and not real.
Obviously, it's also wron
wrong wrong wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Grammar? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Um, yeah. That should say "There should be..." in the last sentence. Figures it's a grammar post that I make a typo in...
Re:EXCUSE ME.... (Score:1)
Re:EXCUSE ME.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize this is a troll, but I'm getting sick of the slashdot stereotype.
After spending all week working hard at a business I've started with a partner, and all week (evenings) playing with my 3 kids and flirting with my wife (after 3 kids you don't have sex anymore, you just flirt), I'm relaxing. I'm looking forward to cleaning up the yard tomorrow hoping to chase off the field mouse that has recently arrived, and to prepare the yard for winter. It's going to be a long, hard weekend, and I'm happy to relax on a Friday night and read slashdot.
Re:EXCUSE ME.... (Score:2)
Finally stopped blaming the stork for those little surprises, eh?
My third is just today six months old. We're in about the same boat as you.
Re:EXCUSE ME.... (Score:1)
You might want to try reading that again, troll. (Score:2)
Re:While interesting.... (Score:2)