Is there a current role for public intellectuals?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Reading an article in the New York Times about Oppenheimer. It caused me to wonder what the current role is for public intellectuals in the US (they seem more accepted and relevant in, say, France.). They have largely been replaced by louder voices who know less and self-appointed pundits who understand less but say more outrageous nonsense. There are exceptions - like deGrasse Tyson or Burns or Frum - but even these have a popular component.

Sadly, Oppenheimer’s life story is relevant to our current political predicaments. Oppenheimer was destroyed by a political movement characterized by rank know-nothing, anti-intellectual, xenophobic demagogues. The witch-hunters of that season are the direct ancestors of our current political actors of a certain paranoid style. I’m thinking of Roy Cohn, Senator Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel, who tried to subpoena Oppenheimer in 1954, only to be warned that this could interfere with the impending security hearing against Oppenheimer. Yes, that Roy Cohn, who taught former President Donald Trump his brash, wholly deranged style of politics. Just recall the former president’s fact-challenged comments on the pandemic or climate change. This is a worldview proudly scornful of science.

After America’s most celebrated scientist was falsely accused and publicly humiliated, the Oppenheimer case sent a warning to all scientists not to stand up in the political arena as public intellectuals. This was the real tragedy of Oppenheimer. What happened to him also damaged our ability as a society to debate honestly about scientific theory — the very foundation of our modern world.

Quantum physics has utterly transformed our understanding of the universe. And this science has also given us a revolution in computing power and incredible biomedical innovations to prolong human life. Yet, too many of our citizens still distrust scientists and fail to understand the scientific quest, the trial and error inherent in testing any theory against facts by experimenting. Just look at what happened to our public health civil servants during the pandemic.

(Link to full article below)

2

I used to have this argument with my dorm roommate – I was a philosophy major and he was a physics major.

I don’t particularly want scientists to stand up in the political arena as public intellectuals. A brilliant scientist may not be very bright about anything else; it takes a completely different kind of training to reason out a political argument vs. teasing out the secrets of the universe. One is not better than the other, they are both necessary, but very different. What happened to Oppenheimer was wrong, but I don’t think he should be held as an example of a public intellectual.

To speak to your question, this country has never been a fan of actual intellectuals, they are in fact held in a great deal of suspicion. Look up synonyms for the noun “intellectual” in a US-based reference and you will get words like double-dome, longhair, and highbrow, all highly pejorative. Anti-intellectualism has a long and powerful history here.

I don’t think this is likely to change much any time soon. We have to cycle through the current celebration of anti-reason before reason becomes more popular and persuasive. Then maybe public intellectuals will stand a better chance – for a while.

3

Do you count authors and public figures like Malcom Gladwell, Paul Krugman, Scott Galloway, or Nate Silver?

What about more controversial figures like Jordan Peterson?

4

It is perhaps not my place to unilaterally decide who is a public intellectual, or not. But I would probably include Gladwell and Silver. I’m not sure about Peterson who has some admirable philosophy, but also some crazier ideas. Krugman the economist? I suppose, though it is a dismal science for a reason. I don’t think I know Galloway.

I’m sure everyone could come up with a bunch of names of people prominent in their field. That doesn’t really answer my question though.

5

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye? They seem to be getting out there using more modern methods (YouTube, podcasts, social media, etc.).

6

The argument against someone like Krugman, to my limited knowledge of him, is most of his stuff is about economics and related to his previous and current positions.

This isn’t exactly the same as a scientist speaking out on the general moral and humanitarian implications of technology.

7

Do we need a more precise definition of “public intellectual” here? My 2 cents, eroded by inflation, is that scientists talking about science are not public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky or John Kenneth Galbraith (d. 2006) who weigh(ed) in on public, that is, political, matters that the public can actually do something about. I wouldn’t put Gladwell in that category, or Peterson, who are popular writers who write solely for entertainment and money and have little new to say.

There is an excellent book, from I think 1987, by Russell Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture In The Age Of Academe, that argued public intellectuals were disappearing due, in part, to gentrification, suburbanization, and academic careerism. While the internet may have changed some of that, I’m not sure we have seen much improvement in public intellectuals since 1987, and I’m tempted to add “atomization” or “loss of real community” to Jacoby’s list. If an intellectual makes a public declaration and no one hears it, are they a public intellectual?

8

Have you read the book by Sowell on Intellectuals and Society? I saw a copy in Chapters. It was written in 2007. It seemed a tougher read and I don’t have time for it, didn’t buy it after a quick peruse. But I wonder if you had read it. He ain’t André Malraux.

My idea of a public intellectual is someone with expertise in a few topics but a good general knowledge of baby writing on matters of broad public importance encompassing many areas and not just related to their profession. Such a definition may not be practical, however.

9

It’s a fascinating question, but the first challenge is defining what one means by ‘public intellectuals’.

I immediately think of Isaac Asimov, who not only had a great capacity for explaining scientific concepts to people who didn’t necessarily have a background in science, but his enthusiasm and expertise extended to Shakespeare, the Bible, and the works of Gilbert and Sullivan. We also had Arthur C. Clarke, Lewis Thomas, and Carl Sagan (the latter two of whom shared a passion for music), but for me, Asimov stood head and shoulders above the rest in his capacity to give a ‘View from a Balloon’.

We currently have Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, the Mythbusters, and Penn & Teller working in similar capacities, but it’s not quite the same - Penn & Teller in particular are intellectual bullies whose series “Bullshit” was not a very thorough examination of the questions - the episode on gun control did not consider for a moment why the US is an outlier in mass shootings, for example.

I think of older talk show hosts like Dick Cavett and Steve Allen, but the function of talk shows now is almost exclusively to promote a celebrity’s latest commercial project.

In the modern context, it’s worth considering how certain comedians, like Jon Stewart, Trevor Noah, Russell Brand, John Oliver, and Jim Jeffries have become people who can take on political and social issues.

Do you consider news media personalities like Rachel Maddow, Georges Monbiot, and Chris Hedges to be public intellectuals?

At any rate, as far as there being a current role for them, I would say an emphatic ‘Yes!’ - I really miss figures like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, and I think there is a vacuum of unrefuted stupidity taking over our public discourse! Whether you’re speaking of QAnon in the US, or the Yellow Vests/Freedom Convoy/Save our Children crowd in Canada, there is still a lot of ignorance and stupidity to be fought!

10

Also, you are far kinder about Dr. Peterson than I could ever be! The hatred towards the trans community caused by him and his followers is based on crap evidence, and is unforgivable in my household.

11

what about George Will, though he’s mostly politics/social issues?

12

I thought Peterson’s two books pretty good. I don’t follow him closely, watch his podcasts or agree with his dietary advice. I don’t know to what extent he is to blame for the views of people who adore him. Some of his ideas are wrong.

Asimov and Sagan are great examples. I don’t know the news personalities mentioned, I don’t watch Maddow, for example. I think there is value in public intellectualism. The definition is nebulous and its modern replacements, the attention-seeking-pundit and loud-talkers-with-an-agenda are not good equivalents.

13

I think there’s an important distinction between people like them, and many of the others mentioned, both by yourself and others. Asimov, as an example, was a polymath – he was not only a very smart and articulate person, but he could talk intelligently (and give opinions) on a range of topics.

Most of the others have some level of strong bona fides in a particular area (Tyson on science, and astrophysics in particular; Penn & Teller on cons, etc.), but I don’t think that they carry much “intellectual weight” outside of their fields of expertise, beyond “I’ve heard of that person, and maybe I think that they’re smart.” George Will may know about politics, and baseball, but I wouldn’t give him any particular credence on his opinion on climate change, the rise of AI, or anything else that isn’t already in his wheelhouse.

14

And there is the danger of a ‘public intellectual’ - there is a risk of the logical fallacy ‘appeal to authority’. Just because Linus Pauling was a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and later got the Nobel Peace prize (one of five people to be a double laureate, and the only person to have two unshared Nobel prizes) does not mean that his dietary advice was sound, as but one example among many.

15

My definition includes the idea of polymaths. Naturally one is more likely to be wrong the further from one’s expertise. No one is right all the time, and this is also true of public intellectuals.

A personal pet peeve is smart people talking about an interesting subject for ninety percent of their book or speech. Then slightly subverting that by deciding to give health or dietary advice which is often poorly informed or depends on weak research.

16

Douglas R. Hofstadter is still writing about artificial intelligence and such for the Atlantic.

17

Him, along with Bostrom and Schneider. I would consider those good examples despite the narrow focus. I give leeway because of the current importance of these topics.

18

Have you ever seen this satire of TED talks? It’s been years, and I still love it! ‘Thought Leader’ gives talk that will inspire your thoughts | CBC Radio (Comedy/Satire Skit) - YouTube