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.

Re:Science & Law a common mix down under

[MikeFM]

Law seems a useless thing to study. I could see studying government but I wouldn't want to study old cases and rulings and all that stuff that is constantly changing anyway. It seems a useless topic to me. If I study physics or engineering I can go do something with it when I'm done. If I study law what can I do with it except argue about it with other people who studied law? It's like Slashdot but wearing a suit, covering less interesting topics, and being paid a lot.

Re:Science & Law a common mix down under

[sholden]

In Australia having a law degree is a prerequisite of becoming a comedian, and hence the topic is of great utility to those who think they are funny.

Re:Science & Law a common mix down under

[anagama]

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 the most part, law students don't learn much that is directly useful, but in truth, the most useless thing we could do is memorize the law as we would the names of capitol cities. We are taught instead, a set of analytical skills that we can use to analyze potential outcomes of current situations, based on current law. Of course, along the way we pick bits of the law here and there, but really, it is about learning a way to think and analyze. It isn't fun - ask just about anyone who did it, and chances are, they wouldn't want to go through it again. It is a sort of boot camp for the mind.

I'm not saying that one can't think unless without going to law school, it is but one method to teach people how to evaluate situations. I would wager that other disciplines, especially the hard sciences, put people through and even more rigorous boot camp than law school.

Re:Science & Law a common mix down under

[MikeFM]

I guess I could see, for teaching reason, law as part of a liberal arts degree or anything that doesn't really require deep thinking but I'd agree that it'd be a bit redundant for science or engineering degrees. If you don't learn how to think things out by writing software, designing a bridge, or researching a new medical breakthrough then I doubt going to law school is going to help. If it does then maybe you should go to law school instead. :)

I do think there is some value in just teaching people to reason but I think it'd work better if it was taught throughout the gradeschool years instead of waiting for college. If I recall my psych correctly abstract reasoning and such is something you learn mostly during your early teens. IMO it's more important to teach people how to learn and how to reason during those years than it is to teach them the exports of Spain or who was the 13th President.

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.

Re:Autobiography

[sketerpot]

Yes, Franklin does have some ideas of which RMS and friends would wholeheartedly approve. Here's a quote from the autobiography you mentioned:

Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

It turned out that someone in London made some modifications to his stove (and not really good ones either), got a patent, and made a small fortune.

Ben can save us

[ctour]

From the article he makes Ben Franlkin sound like some sort of savior who could come foreward from the past and save us all. Bringing the scientists in congress together in a bipartisan manner to discuss science and technology... How many scientists are there in congress? And how likely is it that they could actually sit down and work together on anything, especially technology (They would simply fight over which states got which grants for scientific study) Town hall meetings all across american to bring up important issues... Guess this guy never read "Bowling Alone" all about Americans lack of interest and involvement in all things ranging from bowling leagues to the PTA to politics, The author creates a way oversimplified view of politics and of Ben Franklin.

Re:Ben can save us

[imsabbel]

I think the problem like in every system is that you have to adapt to become succesfull.
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 background and it wouldnt matter.

Re:Ben can save us

[jo42]

Mebbe if he could tell modern day Americans that they have their heads up their arses, they would listen...?

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.

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[kfg]

Franklin understood something about politics, law, publishing, business and invention that most have forgotten:

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

[torpor]

Add a table, bowl of fruit and a violin and you're set.

Such frippery!! Frills!!!

But yeah ... you have to have a deep respect for any man who is capable of admitting to himself, and encouraging others to admit it too, that in the end it all comes down to diet.

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[Tardigrade]

Food, clothing and shelter.
-- 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-need to have to mutate. It's getting from the nichefied (Nietzchefied ;)) form to the totally dominant form that's the problem.

THere's also the serious problem that parts would have to be excised from the totally dominant form, as the niche-form has traits that would become a hinderance toward the maintanence of total domination (implosion ala Black holes). Would you give up your heart for your heart's desire?

Given my edit from domination to control, the prior two paragraphs don't seem descriptive.

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[Tardigrade]

de facto should be ipso facto.

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 ability to learn and change in this all-powerful self????).

As this doesn't seem ideal, power/"total control" must also apply to power over the self (thus we reduce in the self to a hierarchy (or perhaps, "voting blocks"/fights for dominance with changing allegiances) within the "self". Thus a currently dominant consortium could invite an external into the internal, where that new "internal" may or may not then have the ability to vote on it's own.

I've digressed too far and am still quite incoherent. I'll stop.

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[kfg]

What, only two? :)

KFG

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[inode_buddha]

With that argument, (good point, btw) Nietzche gave us the Super Man, the one who was beyond man. IOW, he dominated himself, he was in control of himself. I would like to know where the idea that self-domination leads to stagnation came from, however.

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 crooked legs?" (from _Also Sprach Zarathustra_ , part 1).

Perhaps *this* is why Ben Franklin is so admirable in this day and age? Because he was unburdened and unhindered?

Now lets go watch the national/world news again, from this perspective.

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[Tardigrade]

I was refering to a philosophical (and thus stupid) domination in which the outer world couldn't influence in any way the dominant being. Any influence, unless possibly *very* elastic, would change the dominant being -- thus the self is not totally dominant, as something external could dominate (change, or become) a part of it.

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 modified badguys which can mutate to overcome your defenses. Thus there is an inherent (but not necessarily "good") tendency to see stagnation as bad.

What is the self (what aspects you consider to be the self is different in every being (from micro memetic differences to macro personality/faculty differences to gestalt differences).

Re:His Seven Great Virtues

[Tardigrade]

Scratch this as Self can also contain reactions toward outer effects. A different state in RAM doesn't change the OS or programs on hard disk.

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?

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Condoleeza Rice is very intelligent and was a child prodigy.

Re:Where are they now?

[toxic666]

Ben barely finished schooling (failing mathematics), was apprenticed to a brother and ran away to Philadelphia, discarding his apprentice obligation. He was educated, but not well even by colonial Boston standards.

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?

[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?

Re:Where are they now?

[sllim]

My most sincere apologies if this gets even a little political. I am going to attempt to walk a very fine line of talking about where the visionaries are today, why they are not in politics and compare them to politicians.
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 office are not really worth a shit, but the people that are worth a shit wouldn't think of running for high office?
First do not discount the people that run at the local and state levels. If you really want to see the visionaries that are politicians, try looking there first. Those people have a much greater effect on your life then you probably give them credit for anyways.

Lets start with people that do have a political slant. Let's say Rush Limbaugh. Love him or hate him you simply cannot deny his popularity. I have been a loyal listner for a few years now. Every once in a while someone will call in asking why Rush of all people won't run for President.
I have heard him give 2 answers.
One is kind of a joke, he would have to take a pay cut.
The President of the US doesn't even clear a milliion a year. I think it is in the 200 or 300 thousand range. A pittience when you put him against CEO's of major corporations.
His serious answer 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.
When the house and the senate are split pretty near the middle it is very hard for a President to take a polarizing hard stance in line with there political beliefs. If every single democrat is bound and determined to vote against you, wether you are right or wrong, then you got to be damned sure that every single republican will vote for you. If two or even one republican let you down you have problems. That is the current situation, GWB has no real choice but to allow some liberal slant to his beliefs.
Rush has stated that this being the case someone like him is more comfortable having a venue where he can take a hard conservative approach and not have to compromise his beliefs.
I am really not certain that I would consider Rush a 'visionary' so much. I kind of think of him more like someone that is very good at sorting through the junk and showing people what lies beneath it. In some respects a conservative like him cannot be a visionary, a visionary implies that he has new ideas, a conservative by definition says that if it was working in the past then why are we screwing with it?

Let's look at someone with a far, far more liberal slant then Rush.
Technically a registered Republican, I think of him as a liberal, Arnold S. of the California debacle fame.
On the surface we have someone whom we don't entirely understand. The image he is portraying is that his intentions are good. He obviously has a very strong belief system and he is saying that he wants to pay the US back for the opportunities we gave him.
That is all well and good - but it is going to take a hell of a lot more then good intentions to fix Californias mess.
You can't tell me that Arnold is the brightest bulb on the tree. If you insist on digging on GWB then you can't ignore Arnold, or you are a hypocrite.
Arnold is niether a visionary, or especially smart. But Arnold is something that GW is not. The boy is an actor. He can read a mean script. Seriously, that might be all it takes.
What if Arnold's heart is in the right place? What if Arnold knows exactly what his weaknesses is? What if Arnold surrounds himself with smart advisors that he agrees with and listens too?
Here is a place in the Califor

Re:Where are they now?

[MikeFM]

I agree that money has a lot to do with it. It's disgusting that it requires millions of dollars to win any major election. Anybody who even has a chance to seriously run in such an election is already bought and paid for.

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 because they convinced enough people they were the winning side. At best people vote to keep the other major canidate from winning. The lesser of two evils method is a bad way to govern.

Re:Where are they now?

[titzandkunt]

"...[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. Oh, and all that responsibility would be a drag, too.

T&K.

Re:Where are they now?

[Corgha]

What if Arnold knows exactly what his weaknesses is? What if Arnold surrounds himself with smart advisors that he agrees with and listens too?

[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 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.

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 /. and acting condescending to users turn out not to be so hot after all when it comes down to it.

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 /. for instance ;)

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?

[jalet]

There : http://www.stallman.org/rms.jpg

Re:Where are they now?

[crawling_chaos]

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.

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?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The most important skill a politican needs today is being a good fundraiser.

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 system? Are we as a society doing something that are actively keeping these people out?

Part of the fundraising process is compromising your values. You take money and need to give something back one day. In oil exploration, it's easy - it's just money, and you know it from the start. In politics, you often don't know what it will be, so you'll need to be flexible. You also can't afford to only take money from those completely in line with your principles, so you have to be flexible. There's a real study out there showing that politicians have some of the least complex personalities in society, a trait that serves them well.

The big thinkers aren't so willing to bend like that. They'd be up all night fretting those kinds of decisions and compromises.

Of course, the real problem lies with the citizenry. It's a sad truth that an illiterate sex offender who spent $200 million on a campaign would beat, say Ben Franklin, if he only had $40 thousand to spend. Meanwhile, the people who win these elections see to it that the educational system turns out millions of kids who can't think critically. Cooincidence?

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a solution other than federally-funded elections. I'd at least like to hear what the Supreme Court has to think of the idea.

Re:Where are they now?

[JChung2004]

Are we as a society doing something that are actively keeping these people out?

Most Americans aren't doing anything to get them in, i.e., vote.

Re:Where are they now?

[pmz]

There's no good test to find these individuals

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.

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.

Re:Why

[lxs]

You sir, are an uninformed troll. Please read up on history before making baseless claims. You're basically accusing the inventor of the wheel of holding back science because they did not invent the inflatable tyre.

some names to google:
Democritus Aristotle Heron Ptolemy

And even you should be familiar with Archimedes and Pythagoras.

Re:Why

[bar-agent]

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.

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 and countries. In the time of the Greeks, it was too different.
3) He has name recognition. People already respect and admire him. That makes him a good role model.

What only could have been...

[JackpotMonkey]

I would love to be living in a society that was led by our greatest artisons and scientists such as Franklin, such a society would bring peace and fulfillment just by being in the environment created by it. Look at how the people in power influence us now, The front page of the newspapper never shows good news, prime-time news stories are never about a fireman saving a cat from a tree or anything else good and heart warming. We are born and raised into depressive and supressive thinking, if we try to think "outside of the box" we are thought of as insane or disturbed, even those people who are thinking beyond the norm of what we are today probably could not begin to conceive what would have been if polotics werent running this country.

Imagine a society where rather than a political agenda (is it re-election time? etc..), we are working towards the embetterment of human kind, thinking of our fellow humans rather than our pocketbooks becoming fatter...

I'm sure that this system would never work though. Who would handle the politicians from the rest of the world, it's a nice vision to have though, if ever we could get over our petty differences and live in this society it would truely be a great step forward for all of us.

Re:What only could have been...

[NDPTAL85]

What the fuck is interesting about fireman pulling a cat out of a tree?

We're not evil because we don't like crap like that.

Its just plain boring.

Question

[Newcastle22]

Where are the modern civic scientists? How come they are not important government officials any more?

Re:Question

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

People would rather vote for actors, bodybuilders, and professional wrestlers. Scientists aren't popular enough to get elected, for the most part.

Re:Question

[bedessen]

They all traded up to Accords or Camrys.

Re:Question

[bj8rn]

They don't want to take power. They say that power corrupts.

Karl Marx

[survomies]

And of course Karl Marx was the ultimate civic scientist.

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

[trolman]

The first modern example that comes to mind is the team at Google in that they have done basic research and applied that result for the common good on a mass scale.

Re:Google Science

[maxconsulting]

If that is the first modern example in your mind, then do a google search for "Tim Berners-Lee"

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.

Re:And for today...

[Ohreally_factor]

But good old Linus doesn't seem to interested in Civics. His thing is the Kernal. Nothing wrong with that. He'll get hisa statues, too. But he's purposefully avoided the spotlight, avoided getting into the social ramifications. He leaves that for others.

Re:And for today...

[Jameth]

You might want to consider Stallman in that thought as well. He is very much a leader and an innovator. Although I don't much care for him personally, the GPL has done some marvelous things.

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.

Not Ironic

[Marlor]

Ironically the same issue has an example of a modern day civic scientist, a profile of Richard Meserve, a physicist who became a lawyer.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

A good article on the actual meaning of the word "ironic".. It'd have to be one of the most mis-used words in English.

Re:Not Ironic

[sidecut]

You beat me to the punch! I was gonna post the same thing. That screamed out to be answered to.

You're probably not a big fan of Alanis Morissette's use of the word irony, either. :)

Re:EXCUSE ME....

[rappo]

stop posting on the Internet late at night on a friday, says the guy who posted on the Internet late at night on a friday

Re:You're thinking of Jefferson

[MikeFM]

Is the phrase "Nobody's perfect." saying to little? Seriously, I don't think you can discredit somebodies achievements because of their failures.

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 deep part of human tradition and I doubt it's yet been bred out yet by our 'civilized' behavior.

Also if somebody isn't considered human I don't think you could really call it rape. It'd be like beastiality. Not because the slaves weren't human but because they weren't human in the eyes of the person commiting the act.

Then again you have to seriously question our societies general taboo on sex both then and now. If you want a strong society you'll have as many children as you can properly care for and train in the ways of your society. It's foolish not to be having lots of children because our society does have the resources to care for them all. To have children you need to have more sex. To get a better genetic blend you need people having sex with more partners. One major problem with our society is that the stupid people sit around popping out kids while the educated talented people delay having children and usually have fewer children. Not a good thing unless you want a country ran by people that learned everything they know from Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. So for all of those who have ever read and understood a book with big words and no pictures get off your ass and go breed. :)

Re:EXCUSE ME....

[fucksl4shd0t]

I realize this is a troll, but I'm getting sick of the slashdot stereotype.

....but what the fuck are all you assholes doing reading and posting comments to Slashdot this late on a Friday night? Do you really have nothing better to do than sit in your dorm rooms and play Wolfenstein with your Internet friends? Get out and fucking do something with your lives, losers.

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.

historical myopia

[circletimessquare]

you suffer from historical myopia.

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 turn them into some sort of minor religous saints

they did wonderful things, but don't forget they were human beings

throughout time and place, human nature never changes. so while the founding fathers did great things, they also did bad things (jefferson and his slaves, etc.), and they also did stupid things (hamilton and his burr duel, etc.).

they were human beings: good, bad, and ugly, just like all of us.

don't make them out to be demigods.

don't suffer from historical myopia.

Re:historical myopia

[be-fan]

I'm not making them out to be demi-gods. I'm ml aeenting that they had some actual qualities (intellect, culture, nobility) that is sorely missing in the political world today. I don't doubt that we've come a long way in certain aspects of our political leaders, but we have regressed on many other fronts.

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 respect, you can hardly condemn them for being no better than everyone else. In many other respets, the founding fathers transended their context. They were better, in many ways, than their time. Its this quality that really elevates them above the politicians we have running our country today. Which ones can you point to and really say that they're significantly ahead of the rest of society in this paticular point in time?

Franklin built himself on aphorisms, not science

[ahfoo]

The almanac is the legacy of Franklin and it was nothing but a collection of sayings directed towards simple-minded, conservative, church going farmers that were often misleading and which he himself did not follow by any means.
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, his primary focus was on coining, or borrowing and touching up, aphorisms that would appeal the lifestyle of a gullible, poorly educated rural audiance.
Researchers who actually study sleep cycles rather than just making up sayings for the popular press have found that the human sleep cycle tends towards adding an hour or so of time to each day so that the time a person becomes tired and is properly prepared to sleep is constantly changing relative to the previous night's sleep.
Early to bed and early to rise most likely leads to a kind of mental depression from inadequate sleep that infects the majority of nine to fivers and no doubt may partly account for American's political apathy, obsesity and need to buy products like viagra. And for what? So this shady book publisher can be remembered as an icon of American scientific prowess?

Re:Urban legend or real smack?

[Aardpig]

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:EXCUSE ME....

[billeger]

/. is being injured seriously by the growing number of absurd entries such as this. Why are they allowed to continue online? Moderators should have the power to delete this harmful material and they should exercise it.

Re:Franklin built himself on aphorisms, not scienc

[Pig Bodine]

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 that gave us + (an excess of fluid) and - (a lack of fluid). After learning about electrons, we now know that he got the signs wrong. But it's hard to see how an 18th century experiment could have determined that. It seems to me that this is a pretty enormous scientific contribution. He wasn't Faraday or Maxwell, but this is probably the single most important contribution to understanding electricity made in the 18th century.

Hehe

[CausticWindow]

A physicist that became a lawyer

How proud his mother must be. Her son is the lowest form of life on earth.

Re:Hehe

[anagama]

Are you saying that Eben Moglen, who defends the GPL, is the lowest form of life?

I suppose all people involved with computers are also no better than the worst of them.

Anyway, if you must make a dig at lawyers - be funny. For example, "why do lawyers wear neckties ... it keeps the foreskin from crawling up their necks."

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

[CausticWindow]

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

[johnnyw]

I think that the late Carl Sagan should be a more exemplary choice of a "Civic Scientist".
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, frequently spoke out against nuclear weapons production,
and was a diehard liberal to his last day.
-jcw

Re:Carl Sagan

[johnnyw]

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

[snooo53]

As someone who has watched the series, it is very interesting, but skip the last episode; unless you want to be treated to a long winded rant about the cold war. Other than that the science is pretty amazing for a general audience. Although for the love of god, close your eyes before you see that hokey spaceship of his. I could not stop laughing!

Re:You're thinking of Jefferson

[Trurl's Machine]

For that matter is there evidence that the slaves weren't willing partners? (I never have actually studied the topic.)

Please do!

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 your instincts. It's about fulfilling your fantasies in a civilized manner. If Jefferson-style sex is what turns you on, just post a personal ad like "An intelligent and powerful man seeks a lustful and willing slave girl" on an appropriate newsgroup, website or magazine. Or maybe consider suggesting some kinky foreplay to your girlfriend. You don't really need to participate in a real misery of an entire race or nation just to get laid.

You might want to try reading that again, troll.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Bill Clinton didn't write the article.

Evidently...

[zer0harm]

... fear was not a factor for Ben ;)
Out of interest, the venerable man himself premiered on New Zealand television tonight, in the 100th episode of Southpark... coincidence?

Re:While interesting....

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Whups! Missed the line where it said it was his science advisor and not Bill himself.

Party animal Franklin

[AndroidCat]

I wonder, does Richard Meserve also have a lifetime guest-pass/membership at the Hellfire Club? (Run by Franklin's friend Sir Francis Dashwood.) There was a lot more to Franklin than the sanitized popular "civic" version of history. (But isn't there always?)

Wonderful Franklin quote from the article...

[mizukami]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's almost scary how appropriate that quote is today...

Re:Wonderful Franklin quote from the article...

[AHumbleOpinion]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

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..

[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!

Re:Franklin built himself on aphorisms, not scienc

[Pig Bodine]

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 your quote suggests. A quick google search turned up the following more detailed chronology:Electrostatics which does discuss Franklin's contributions.

I will grant you that Priestly and Coulomb's work was earlier than I remembered. But Franklin's work was still among the most significant contributions to understanding of electricity during the 18th century.

As neat as Ben may have been...

[gryf]

It amuses me that a Clinton aid picks an alcoholic womanizer as a model citizen scientist.

Re:As neat as Ben may have been...

[anagama]

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 ... BAD.

wrong wrong wrong.

[Tangurena]

Franklin's experiment with electricity is what is called a "critical experiment." One that can only be explained by one system of hypotheses and cannot be explained in another. What the kite experiment was set to determine: was electricity a fluid or was it a particle? Quantum mechanics states it is both, but at the time of the experiment, duality was not allowed (its that Aristotelean myth of the Law of the Excluded Middle).

Re:Where I live we have another name for them..

[bussdriver]

Franklen was a nerd who learned the political/social side that many nerds disreguard.

Re:Urban legend or real smack?

[lanalyst]

Not sure of your source - can you post a reference?

I find referces to smallpox blankets ... none of which involve Franklin. And it seems by most accounts, he championed Native American Rights as well as a key figure with negotiations ending the French-Indian war.

Re:TROLL, MOD PARENT DOWN

[ahfoo]

Well I know better than to whine about moderation, and perhaps I'm being too dismissive of Franklin's scientific contributions, but I hope people will wake up --pun intended-- to the notion that he lived off of collections of aphorisms and many of them were exceedingly unscientific.
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 whether they believe it is true that going to sleep early and waking up early is the basis of a healthy lifestyle and they'll be sure to agree and even assume that there is some scientific basis to the idea.
I live in Asia and people here tend to sleep all around the clock. It's no problem for me to tell my boss I won't be in till three because I'm going to be sleeping. He wouldn't think twice. Imagine saying that in the States. Now look at the health of the average American compared to the average Asian. Perhaps you can dismiss all of this out of hand, but I feel stronngly about it because it's what I know from first hand experience and I was shocked to realize how backwardws Americans can be about incredibly simple things like sleep patterns. When I ask myself why, I have to imagine that idolship of figures like Franklin is a big part of it.

Linux is no marvel of technology

[AHumbleOpinion]

He's helped create a marvel of technology and engineering, entirely for the public benefit.

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 is the distribution model, a GPL'd operating system freely available over the internet. That was new and different ten years ago, Unix running on a PC was not.

[1] Technically Mac OS X will probably become the dominant Unix environment but I'll give this one to Linux anyway since most Mac users won't know what Unix is and that they have it. Personally I think this makes Mac OS X the perfect desktop Unix.

Ex-science advisor huh?

[nametaken]

Does that mean this is the guy responsible for spending billions of dollars to find out that power lines don't cause cancer?

Re:You're thinking of Jefferson

[MikeFM]

Alt.com has the history of Jefferson's treatment of his slaves?

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 wrong to keep slaves for real so I figure that such fantasies are down there with the primal instinct to kill with your bare hands and eat raw meat. They're always waiting to pop out if your civil manner is broken.. which is how we end up with serial killers, rapist, etc. I'd also guess that's part of why soldiers who are trained to be killers often become rapists while at war and have trouble readjusting to society when the war is over. I used to know a guy who couldn't live with anyone cus he'd beat the shit out of anything near him in his sleep.. reliving hand to hand fighting he did during the war. That sort of thing.

Re:Where I live we have another name for them..

[inode_buddha]

Damn... +5, insightful, if I ever saw one RE: Franklin was a nerd...

Re:EXCUSE ME....

[RealAlaskan]

... after 3 kids you don't have sex anymore, you just flirt ...

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.