Vote for top intellectuals

adamd164

Prospect's vote for the top public intellectuals is open here. There are 100 shortlisted, you pick your top 5.

Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett are all nominated. You probably know that Dawkins won this last time round (he had 2x as many votes as the runner-up).


My votes went to:

Richard Dawkins
EO Wilson
Dan Dennett
Chris Hitchens
Steven Pinker

eoin5

Al Gore makes the list and Naomi Klein doesnt?! And Samantha Power too! ugh. Rite here we go in no particular order:

Barenboim
Pinker
Chomsky
Dawkins
Hitchens

Akrasia

I don't get how hitchens gets to be a 'top intellectual'

He is an attention seeker. He has no original ideas, and absolutely no integrity.

Can anyone name even one single idea that hitchens has come up with (and not just repeated)


Hitchens couldn't even see through the blatant lies and manipulation surrounding the Iraq war. I could see through that sh1t while I was still in college. Does that make me better than a 'top intellectual'?

I doubt it.

Overheal

Its sad that the only 2 I could recognise were Gore and the Pope

stereoroid

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't get how hitchens gets to be a 'top intellectual'

He is an attention seeker. He has no original ideas, and absolutely no integrity.

Can anyone name even one single idea that hitchens has come up with (and not just repeated)

Well, I credit him with being the first to see through Mother Teresa, for example. He has already explained his support for the Iraq War, and why he's partly changed his mind, in excruciating detail.

But I generally agree with you: he's not a scientist, he operates in the world of post-everything and reactionary commentary, like about half the people on that list. Thomas Friedman, Amr Khaled, David Petraeus and The Pope are supposed to be Intellectuals? :rolleyes:

If we're voting on recent achievements, then my (alphabetical) choices are:
Rem Koolhaas
Lawrence Lessig
Steven Levitt
Lee Smolin
J Craig Venter

Zillah

Booo! Where's Sam Harris?

adamd164

You can input Sam as your own nomination if you want. There's a box down the end of the voting form.

is_that_so

TBH that whole list is extremely skewed and there are an awful lot of hack journalists on that list. Friedman for example has been rambling for years and Power, well, I wonder.

My 5, in no order and because of the foreign policy slant.

Chomsky
The Pope
Tariq Ramadan
Samuel Huntington
Robert Kagan(Very good, even though some of his ideas may be unattractive)

Ekancone

Joseph Stiglitz
Diane Coyle
Richard Dawkins

No one else has really made an impact on me this year.

(I can't see the list from work so I'm just throwing my own in)

Cactus Col

Overheal wrote: »

Its sad that the only 2 I could recognise were Gore and the Pope

I would've said it's sad how few people admit to not recognising most of the people on the list.

Obni

Cactus Col wrote: »

I would've said it's sad how few people admit to not recognising most of the people on the list.

Absolutely! I left without voting because I didn't recognise 75% of the names, and have only a sketchy idea of the work of another 20%. Nothing particularly edifying about voting for your 'Top intellectuals from the 5% that you've actually heard of'.

Guess I'm just a suedoh-intellectual after all.....

nesf

is_that_so wrote: »

TBH that whole list is extremely skewed and there are an awful lot of hack journalists on that list. Friedman for example has been rambling for years and Power, well, I wonder.

Exactly, but then any such "list" will always be a bit suspect tbh. "Intellectual" is a very loaded word, people seem to be nominated for their popular work only which is missing the point in my view.


My list with this context for what it's worth in no particular order:

Lee Smolin
Umberto Eco
Steven Pinker
Daniel Dennet
Richard Dalkins

Galvasean

I'm not voting because I recognize only a handful of them.

Tigrrrr

What exactly has this got to do with atheism

Anyway, guess I would vote for the economists Esther Duflo and Gaidar.

I would love to know what the Heck Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins and The Pope are doing on that list.

nesf

Tigrrrr wrote: »

What exactly has this got to do with atheism

Some people suffering from the delusion that atheism is the choice of the true intellectual would be my guess.

robindch

nesf wrote: »

Some people suffering from the delusion that atheism is the choice of the true intellectual

Reminds me of something Chekhov said:

Anton Chekhov wrote:

I spent my religion a long ago and never fail to be puzzled by an intellectual who is also a believer.

nesf

robindch wrote: »

Reminds me of something Chekhov said:

I've never been able to decide whether atheists or theists are more arrogant when it comes to the dismissal of the opinions of those who disagree with them.

PDN

nesf wrote: »

I've never been able to decide whether atheists or theists are more arrogant when it comes to the dismissal of the opinions of those who disagree with them.

I think we theists do the arrogance thing much better. Of course we have had more practice over the centuries.

nesf

PDN wrote: »

I think we theists do the arrogance thing much better. Of course we have had more practice over the centuries.

Well, with age the edge dulls a bit, nothing quite like a young fresh approach is there?

nesf

nesf wrote: »

Exactly, but then any such "list" will always be a bit suspect tbh. "Intellectual" is a very loaded word, people seem to be nominated for their popular work only which is missing the point in my view.


My list with this context for what it's worth in no particular order:

Lee Smolin
Umberto Eco
Steven Pinker
Daniel Dennet
Richard Dalkins

Actually, since I want to take a break from cramming for tomorrow's exam and I've been think more about the list, here's why I nominated that bunch:

Lee Smolin. I chose him because of a single book "The Trouble with Physics" which was an excellent sceptical attack on the academic orthodoxy which wasn't a mere rant or pseudo-scientific nonsense. The target was the funding and backing of string theory research in mainstream Physics. As one of my old Physics lecturers put it to me "I've great hope for him, he's a young man and there's so much questioning of the orthodoxy that needs doing in the popular sphere".

Umberto Eco. Essentially, while I'm not a fan of some of his stuff, he's a very good example of how allegory, analogy and metaphor are as effective in philosophical analysis as formal logic is. Personally I prefer more logical analysis for the most part but I think he's doing important work.

Stephen Pinker. His books on the mind, while a bit on the dense side, are excellent explanations of neuroscience and specifically the computational theory of the mind and applications of it to problems in language, perception etc. He is overly quick to dismiss other approaches (in my opinion) but it's still good stuff for a lay audience.

Daniel Dennet. He's a Philosophy of Mind academic and while he can be very smug he still has written some good, accessible stuff on the subject. Not so much a lay audience focussed person here but he doesn't obfuscate his work to the point of it being unintelligible to the lay man from what I've read.

Richard Dalkins. An easy one, he's done excellent work in the field of popular science. I don't have a whole lot of respect for his religious stuff to be honest, but I don't think it lessens the impact of his work as a populariser of science.



Some of the above might pique a few people's interests about an individual, hopefully.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

Some people suffering from the delusion that atheism is the choice of the true intellectual would be my guess.

I think your assertion is inherently fallacious for the reason that atheism isn't a "choice", per se. It is a conclusion to which one arrives based upon observation. Ergo, if a person believes it to be the only logical such one, then surely you'll see that it points to a common mindset, as opposed to an arbitrary, coincidental agreement on a "toss of the coin"-type decision.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

I've never been able to decide whether atheists or theists are more arrogant when it comes to the dismissal of the opinions of those who disagree with them.

Wow, do all agnostics make such sweeping generalisations?

Never imagined that the mere fact of someone's opinions on the origin of the Universe would automatically render them arrogant/kind/caring/spiteful/loving/(insert other adjective here). Silly me.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

I think your assertion is inherently fallacious for the reason that atheism isn't a "choice", per se. It is a conclusion to which one arrives based upon observation. Ergo, if a person believes it to be the only logical such one, then surely you'll see that it points to a common mindset, as opposed to an arbitrary, coincidental agreement on a "toss of the coin"-type decision.

The persuasive power of the logic of an argument rests almost completely on the strength of the assumptions that underlie it. Assuming that there's no flaw in the argument. Your belief in the position of atheism being the correct position is logical only insofar as one is willing to accept your assumptions that you argue from as being true.

The choice in this, is not one of an arbitrary nature between two sides of a coin. It is a position taken because of deeper arguments in epistemology etc that underlie any debate on the existence or non-existence of anything and whether we can have knowledge of the answer.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Wow, do all agnostics make such sweeping generalisations?

Do all atheists suffer from taking themselves too seriously? :pac:

Dades

adamd164 wrote: »

Never imagined that the mere fact of someone's opinions on the origin of the Universe would automatically render them arrogant/kind/caring/spiteful/loving/(insert other adjective here). Silly me.

I doubt any arrogance is attributed on foot of the "mere fact of someone's opinions" rather on the manner of expression of said opinions.

adamd164

Dades wrote: »

I doubt any arrogance is attributed on foot of the "mere fact of someone's opinions" rather on the manner of expression of said opinions.

Precisely why I found nesf's assertion that he can't decide whether "atheists or theists are more arrogant when it comes to the dismissal of the opinions of those who disagree with them" to be a complete and utter generalisation. All one can tell about a person from the label "atheist" is that said person does not believe that a deity created the Universe. An atheist may be extremely arrogant, he or she may also be extemely humble, but it does not logically follow on from that person's atheism.

adamd164

nesf wrote: »

The persuasive power of the logic of an argument rests almost completely on the strength of the assumptions that underlie it. Assuming that there's no flaw in the argument. Your belief in the position of atheism being the correct position is logical only insofar as one is willing to accept your assumptions that you argue from as being true.

The choice in this, is not one of an arbitrary nature between two sides of a coin. It is a position taken because of deeper arguments in epistemology etc that underlie any debate on the existence or non-existence of anything and whether we can have knowledge of the answer.

Yes, but you see I think you've just (inadvertently?) vindicated my decision to start this thread. Of course an atheist will assume there to be no flaw in his argument -- if I thought my assumptions to be in any way suspect, I would never be so overtly sure of them as I am, and I would not make judgements on the characters of others based upon their own modus operandi of thinking about such matters.

My opinion is that you too readily equate the postulates made by either side of this debate. You claim that both theists an atheists make antecedent assumptions about entirely subjective matters, and therefore are both as "logical" standpoints as each other, insofar as the word can be used when relating such matters. However, there is clearly a critical difference between - on the one hand - the assumption that what is demonstrable is all that exists, and - on the other - that undemonstrable entities can exist. The former requires only reservation and caution, the latter a claim of access to profound knowledge which - if true - would be totally beyond our comprehension anyway.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

Yes, but you see I think you've just (inadvertently?) vindicated my decision to start this thread. Of course an atheist will assume there to be no flaw in his argument -- if I thought my assumptions to be in any way suspect, I would never be so overtly sure of them as I am, and I would not make judgements on the characters of others based upon their own modus operandi of thinking about such matters.

My opinion is that you too readily equate the postulates made by either side of this debate. You claim that both theists an atheists make antecedent assumptions about entirely subjective matters, and therefore are both as "logical" standpoints as each other, insofar as the word can be used when relating such matters. However, there is clearly a critical difference between - on the one hand - the assumption that what is demonstrable is all that exists, and - on the other - that undemonstrable entities can exist. The former requires only reservation and caution, the latter a claim of access to profound knowledge which - if true - would be totally beyond our comprehension anyway.

I'm in the middle of my final exams so I don't have much time to argue with you (to be honest). I don't equate the postulates of both sides, it is not the source of my position as an agnostic (i.e. I don't view each option as being equally probable etc), that source comes from a scepticism on two issues:

1) The problem of induction is a big issue for science, I'm not convinced that everything that seems correct right now, is correct. I'm happy to work, as if they were correct for practical reasons, but I'm not happy with extending this to definite opinions on some topics because I really don't think we've seen all there is to see and that our theories will never improve/change.

2) I'm not convinced that only things that we can see exist (i.e. while I'm happy to agree that if something is independently visible to us then it exists in some sense (it may be a mirage, but we're still seeing "something" when we see a mirage, it's just not what we think it is), I don't see why I should believe that only things we can see exist). *


I still don't see how I vindicated why you started this thread here though.


Edit (on reflection and at a break from study, it occurred to me that the above might be misread as a closet theist argument, which it isn't)

* I don't however believe that either of the two problems add weight to the position of a specific deity existing and dictating the rules of a particular church. I however cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of superhuman intelligence or non-specific deity like creatures or beings which we cannot observe existing. As I said in the other thread, to a non-philosopher, I might as well be an atheist.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

I doubt any arrogance is attributed on foot of the "mere fact of someone's opinions" rather on the manner of expression of said opinions.

Is there any other reasonable way to read what I said?

adamd164

I'm in exams myself (not final year though, best of luck), so I'll get back to you when I can.

nesf

adamd164 wrote: »

I'm in exams myself (not final year though, best of luck), so I'll get back to you when I can.

We can take it back up again in June.