tealin: (Default)
Tealin ([personal profile] tealin) wrote2005-11-04 08:52 am

People Being Smart

'...But in today's politics, changing your mind in response to new evidence is seen as a weakness. When he was Vice-Chancellor at Warwick University, the biologist Sir Brian Follett remarked: "I don't like scientists on my committees. You don't know where they'll stand on any issue. Give them some more data, and they'll change their minds!"'

The Science of Discworld III, pg 299

[identity profile] dragonclaws.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 06:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Terry Pratchett, I wish you were in politics.

That is just too beautiful for words.

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 09:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Writing a series of popular books that affect how people see the world probably does more than any one politician could ... After all, people like Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin) and George Orwell (1984) had (and still have) considerable political power.

[identity profile] dragonclaws.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 09:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, but the intelligent writers of the world aren't the ones writing and signing the bills and making the laws that fuck the whole system up.

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 09:38 pm (UTC)(link)
No, but they may influence the people who elect the people writing the bills. And these people can denounce what they don't like, as long as their democracy at least pretends to recognise freedom of speech. Uncle Tom's Cabin took Abolitionism in the North from a fringe movement to the mainstream and was a significant force behind the Civil War. Orwell's 1984 is cited every time civil liberties are curtailed, and it's likely because he pointed out to us how easy it would be to become an authoritarian society that we keep checking ourselves.

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 09:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Addendum: There is also the opinion that those best qualified to run the world are precisely the ones who don't want to do it.

[identity profile] dragonclaws.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 09:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Very good point. And a very wise one, too.

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 11:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you. I got it from books. ; )

[identity profile] dragonclaws.livejournal.com 2005-11-05 12:03 am (UTC)(link)
Yay books!
infiniteviking: A bird with wings raised in excitement. (Default)

[personal profile] infiniteviking 2005-11-04 06:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Hahahahahaha. That's brilliant on so many levels....

Reminds me of an astronaut story I read. After one of Wally Schirra's spaceflights, Robert Kennedy asked him about his 'political ambitions'. Schirra said something like this: "Well, I'm an engineer and a pilot, and I'm becoming something of a scientist. That is to say that my decisions are based on fact, and the transition to politics would be impossible."

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 06:45 pm (UTC)(link)
HAHA! Perfect.

[identity profile] tannhaeuser.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 08:28 pm (UTC)(link)

[identity profile] rosynose.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 08:55 pm (UTC)(link)
I hope to God Mr Follet was being ironic ^_^ (he's a biologist, for pete's sake).

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 09:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, yes, the next line in the book is 'He understood the joke: most politicians wouldn't even realise it was a joke.'

[identity profile] rebekah-weasley.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 11:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I can't find The Science of Discworld I, II, or III in our library; where did you get your copy Tealin?

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-04 11:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Library. I don't think the Science ofs have caught on in the States, as I've heard that from a number of people.

[identity profile] twirlynoodle.livejournal.com 2005-11-05 12:04 am (UTC)(link)
Of course, Science of Discworld III does take a rather unflattering view of American fundamentalist Christians... Well, okay, it takes an unflattering view of theists in general, but it singles out American fundamentalist Christians in particular, as it is (with a few side trips into time travel) mostly about evolution.