Thanks Chris. So on this understanding scientists may have a duty of a specific kind of critique (scrutiny of factual based positions) but not necessarily a duty of ‘truth to power’ that Said asks of intellectuals, right?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
That's an interesting question. I suppose it would depend on context. If powerful forces from above are sabotaging the ability to even pursue science freely (as in the U.S. currently), maybe truth-to-power is harder to separate? Or maybe this political move becomes a fact-based position to critique.
I'm inclined to say scientists have responsibility to speak truth-to-power where this is compromising facts & science itself, but can only critique *authoritatively* as experts for facts/positions directly pertaining to stuff they research & know. Otherwise, standard citizen responsibility.
That sounds right to me, Chris, thank you. But it is a much more narrow and specific duty than what Said has in mind for public intellectuals. Their purpose seems to be an all-purpose gadfly.
So you disagree with him on that duty, then? I need to check out that lecture. My bias is to say that any extra responsibility comes not as a public intellectual (or scientist), but having more power & influence, period. Trying to influence specifically as a public intellectual can backfire, too!
I don’t know honestly. I am trying to figure out if he grounds this role obligation in expertise or just in occupying a particular place in society. I’ll have to finish the lectures first. Hope you enjoy them. I adore his voice and his tone
Comments