Benjamin Franklin, Civic Scientist

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."

Comments

Re:Slow news day again.

[inertia187]

Slow news day again.

Not so bad, I've seen worse.

I'm currently reading this book, 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.

Science & Law a common mix down under

[Malfourmed]

Dual degrees in science and law is common in Australia where most universities force undergraduates to take a combined law degree, ie Science/Law, Arts/Law, Commerce (or Economics)/Law etc.

Autobiography

[daeley]

Franklin's autobiography makes for fascinating reading.

"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

[toxic666]

Interesting reading, indeed. But it should be taken (as any autobiography) in the context of the author writing about himself. The autobiography was started when his relationship with his son, William -- appointed Governor of New Jersey through his efforts -- was deteriorating and intended to remind William that people of humble beginnings can advance through hard work and good business relationships.

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.

His Seven Great Virtues

[TekReggard]

Time covered Benjamin Franklin in this special issue of Time Magazine. The insights into one of the founding father's of the nation I call my homeland are very inspiring. I think every member of the current Administration could do good by learning a few lessons from this man. Not to mention, in its relation to the current article, he was a realistic inventor. Most everything I can recall him being responsible for inventing has an Important purpose, as opposed to some of the things we see nowadays, which do what, save you a little time? A little pain? There are far too many *Cosmetic* inventions in today's society than I can handle. I enjoy reading about stuff like synthetic diamonds, advances in alternative fuels, and a more modernized house. I do not enjoy reading about the next flat panel display ... only 500$ more, looks the EXACT same to me?! Well you probably get my point.

I'm just glad to be reading something about a great man instead of a criminal, for once.

Where are they now?

[be-fan]

At one time, we had high-minded intellectuals running this country. Ones with vision and foresight and knowledge and education. Where are they today? We've got a president who is, at best, of averge intelligence, and whose greatest strength is something as plebian as business. I doubt that people like the founding fathers aren't around today --- I don't think this world has gone that far done the shit-hole just yet. But where are they hiding? Are they staying out of public service just because they're so damn disgusted by the whole system? Are we as a society doing something that are actively keeping these people out?

Re:Where are they now?

[Dhalka226]

Are they staying out of public service just because they're so damn disgusted by the whole system? Are we as a society doing something that are actively keeping these people out? I think that the truly intelligent and civic-minded people would generally be more likely to do things like vote or run for public office. But yes, we as a society are doing something to keep them out. Maybe not as a society, that may be poor wording. The problem, as I see it, is money. In order to become elected to office, you generally need gobs of money. At the very least, you need to be very good at raising gobs of money if you're not rolling in your own. The average person is not going to be good at either making or raising huge sums of money and I can't imagine that intelligence alone would be enough to change that. Many of our most intelligent people have often been rather shy and withdrawn in their own ways. But assuming Ben Genius does get enough money to compete in national elections, money enters into play again. Because either: 1) He spent his own money, in which case the man essentially spent, let's say, two million dollars (a low estimate) on a campaign that won him a job that pays $400,000 a year. Do the math; he loses $400,000 over the term of a presidency--according to the math. Logically, one may assume that there are other perks that can very much make up for that money. And I'm not talking about power alone, but rather what power can get you. 2) If he didn't spend his own money, he raised funds and it will, at least in some part, make him beholden to their interests. Let's face it: Companies give the biggest sums and they only do so if they feel a candidate is going to advance their own goals. I don't think I need to go much further than that for people to agree politicians are, to some extent, held by the balls by their contributors. On the flip side of the coin, money also keeps people out of the race. A high proportion of truly brilliant people are successful in the private sector. Why should I give up my simple office job raking it $120,000 a year to become the president, get my brains beat in on national television for every "wrong" (a subjective term) move I make and make only slightly more money? Or if $120k is low, maybe even less money than I could otherwise. And as I intimated, one thing we SURELY are doing as a society are accepting the political smears. I'm not only talking about the "attack ads" run around elections, but the entire atmosphere on Capital Hill. Think about it. Congress is little more than two charged, polar opposite masses of people. Sometimes one side or another has so many more members that they can steam-roll their agendas through; sometimes it is so even that there must be compromise. But it's disgusting to see how often votes go straight down party lines. I would like to believe there are some free-thinkers in Congress but they don't seem to show themselves. And any time one party gets its way over the objection of the other, there will be harsh comments back and forth for further political gain. Why get in the middle of that? Can independents win? I believe there are five independents currently in the whole of Congress. One senator, who was a Republican but switch parties after he was re-elected: Could he have won reelection as an independent? That leaves four members of the House who I assume were all elected as independents. Four out of 400+ is still a heck of a minority. And yeah, there are a handful of independent governors and state legislatures around. I hope they are part of a trend and not simply an exception, but I don't suppose I'm holding my breath about it. All of these things keep civic-minded people away from politics in one form or another. Frankly, in my estimation, the people who would make the best politicans are the ones who lay aside their political affiliations and simply think and act and vote out of pure logical deduction. Sure, it will still produce disagreements, but at least we can be sure that a vote is truly what a candidate believes in and not simply what his party told him to vote. Can we say that is true today?

Why

[Timesprout]

Why should there be an American prototype of a civic scientist. Surely many of the Greek thinkers, (Aristotle and Plato in particular) paved the way for this sort of thinking. Franklin was undoubtly a brilliant man but I would hardly call him a prototype.

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.

And for today...

[mcrbids]

Perhaps one of the most likely modern-day candidates might be Linus Torvalds....

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.

Ben..

[lanalyst]

I work in Philadelphia.. in the historial area. Reminders and memorials of Franklin are everywhere. Sometime ago, I found myself interested in this man who seemed facinated and involved with seemingly every aspect of his time. He always had an opinion and as the article pointed out, was willing to change his mind. He was truly beloved by his contemporaries - when he died in 1790, his funeral was a testament to the regard he was held - in all diciplines of his day.

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 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 on Oct 9th!