Monday, February 11, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Print | Comments |

Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

by Richard Dawkins

The University of Oxford has advertised the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. I retire from the Chair in September 2008. The advertisement can be seen at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/fp/wd9-018.shtml

What you will not see there is the wonderful manifesto that Charles Simonyi himself wrote when he endowed the Chair in 1995. It means a lot to me, and I reproduce it here for all to see. Although Oxford has an unbreakable rule that incumbents have no say in the choice of their successor, I am allowed to hope and believe the Electoral Board will take note of this remarkable document. Would that all philanthropists had such enlightened, forward-looking intelligence.

In the Preface to a forthcoming anthology (The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing), I describe Dr Simonyi, with slightly irreverent affection, as follows: "Charles Simonyi is a sort of combination of International Renaissance Man, Playboy of the Scientific World, Test Pilot of the Intellect, and Space-age Orbiter of the Mind as well as of the Planet."

Thanks Charles, for everything.

Richard

Charles

Charles Simonyi in 2007

Since I am a computer scientist, it seems appropriate that the present description of my intentions to create a chair in 'Public Understanding of Science' at Oxford University should be called a "program"! Just as a computer program sets the processor on an inexorable future course, shouldn't this program guide the chair's Appointing Committee for generations to come? Quite evidently, the metaphor is weak. Administrative affairs being as they are I can only vainly hope that the distinguished committee members will take my comments to heart before deciding on a new appointment. Yet I begrudge by no means the uncertainty and flexibility that is built into the appointment process so that the University can adapt, evolve, and flourish.

This flexibility can be used for experimentation and exploration of new arrangements but over time it can also result in an accumulating creep or drift in direction that may not even be noticed. The purpose of this program is then to be a fixed navigation point on the sea of possibilities. It says: this is where we were in 1995, this was the kernel of agreement between me, between the University, and between Prof. Richard Dawkins, the first occupant of the chair. Deviate from this point if you must, but do it knowingly. Return to it if you can.

The chair is for 'Public Understanding of Science', so the holder will be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field rather than study the public's perception of the same. By 'public' we mean the largest possible audience, provided, however, that people who have the power and ability to propagate or oppose the ideas (especially scholars in other sciences and in humanities, engineers, journalists, politicians, professionals, and artists) are not lost in the process. Here it is useful to distinguish between the roles of scholars and popularisers. The university chair is intended for accomplished scholars who have made original contributions to their field, and who are able to grasp the subject, when necessary, at the highest levels of abstraction. A populariser, on the other hand, focuses mainly on the size of the audience and frequently gets separated from the world of scholarship. Popularisers often write on immediate concerns or even fads. In some cases they seduce less educated audiences by offering a patronizingly oversimplified or exaggerated view of the state of the art or the scientific process itself. This is best seen in hindsight, as we remember the 'giant brains' computer books of yesteryear but I suspect many current science books will in time be recognized as having fallen into this category. While the role of populariser may still be valuable, nevertheless it is not one supported by this chair. The public's expectation of scholars is high, and it is only fitting that we have a high expectation of the public.

Understanding' in this instance should be taken a little poetically as well as literally. The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all. Those in the audience who reach the understanding sufficient to reveal the order and beauty in science will also gain greater insight into the connectedness of science and their everyday life. Finally,' science' here means not only the natural and mathematical sciences but also the history of science and the philosophy of science as well. However, preference should be given to specialties which express or achieve their results mainly by symbolic manipulation, such as Particle physics, Molecular biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Computer science, Linguistics, Brain research, and, of course Mathematics. The reason for this is more than a personal predilection. Symbolic expression enables the highest degree of abstraction and thence the utilization of powerful mathematical and data processing tools ensure tremendous progress. At the same time the very means of success tends to isolate the scientists from the lay audience and prevents the communication of the results. Considering the profoundly vital interdependence between the society at large and the scientific world, the dearth of effective information flow is positively dangerous.

In order to accomplish the above goals, the appointees to the chair must have a pedagogical range that goes beyond the traditional university setting. They should be able to communicate effectively with audiences of all kinds and in different media. Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour. Naturally, they will interact with political, religious, and other societal forces, but they must not, under any circumstances, let these forces affect the scientific validity of what they say. Conversely, they should be also candid about the limits of scientific knowledge at any given time, and communicate the uncertainties, frustrations, scientifically perplexing phenomena, and even the failures in their area of expertise.

Scientific speculation, when so labelled, and when the concept of speculation and its place in the scientific method has been made clear to the audience, can be very exciting. It is a very effective communication tool, and it is by no means discouraged.

We recognize that persons with these combined qualifications are rare. Therefore, the preferences listed above for particular scientific specialties should be taken secondary to the appointees' pedagogical and communication talents.

The appointees should have the opportunity to continue their scientific work. This is best accomplished if their appointment in the Department closest to their field would be held jointly with the Department of Continuing Education. While being firmly based in Oxford the appointees should receive every possible support from the University for travel and for visiting professorships. In accordance to this, their teaching and administrative responsibilities within Oxford should be correspondingly limited and should be directed primarily towards the educations of non-specialists. They would be expected to write books and magazine articles in any medium for the popular as well as scientific audiences, participate in public lectures, whether through the University or otherwise and generally participate in the expression of the "Public Understanding of Science".

Charles Simonyi
Bellevue 15 May 1995

Posted: Monday, February 11, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 281 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #125112 by theantitheist on February 11, 2008 at 1:51 am

This is going to an interesting appointment. Any one have a 'bookies favourate' or someone they'd like to nominate?

Other Comments by theantitheist

2. Comment #125115 by MPhil on February 11, 2008 at 1:57 am

So, Prof. Dr. Dawkins is going to retreat from academia. This might be seen as a sad moment, for surely the academic world is going to lose one of its most prominent and productive members.
I doubt, however, that Prof. Dr. Dawkins will henceforth be entirely absent - and this thought makes me content.

His contributions will stand, and he can retire in the knowledge that the world is a better, more enlightened world that has had its consciousness raised - for his contributions.

For that, we should thank Prof. Dr. Dawkins - and I want to do this now myself: Thank you for over 30 years of wonderful books, lectures, debates and documentaries. Thank you for raising the collective consciousness of the world about the religious delusion. Thank you for giving us the 'selfish gene' interpretation. Thank you for giving us the 'extended phenotype' interpretation. Thank you for the wonderful prose poetry of "The Ancestor's Tale" and "Unweaving the Rainbow". Thank you for all your other wonderful books, papers and articles. Thank you also for the contribution you made to the thinking of the deeply missed Douglas Adams. Thank you for everything!

Other Comments by MPhil

3. Comment #125117 by Eamonn Shute on February 11, 2008 at 1:58 am

I would nominate Professor Steve Jones:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jones_(biologist)

I have read several of his books and they are very well writtten. He is another biologist, but I don't think that matters.

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

4. Comment #125118 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 2:02 am

Thank you for over 30 years of wonderful books, lectures, debates and documentaries. Thank you for raising the collective consciousness of the world about the religious delusion.

Don't worry, you are not getting rid of me that easily! Retirement from the Oxford Chair will free me up to be even more strident, shrill etc etc etc. I expect to be busier than ever, with two Foundations to run (the British and American branches of RDFRS), books to write (I have already started the next one) and who knows what else?
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

5. Comment #125119 by stephenray on February 11, 2008 at 2:04 am

Adam Hart-Davis might do well.

Other Comments by stephenray

6. Comment #125120 by Quetzalcoatl on February 11, 2008 at 2:07 am

books to write (I have already started the next one)

Can I ask what the next book will be about?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #125122 by rod-the-farmer on February 11, 2008 at 2:11 am

Sir, I hope your exit was either your own choice, or due to a time limit imposed on incumbents. I would hate to think your more recent books and public visibility caused Oxford to ease you out in favour of someone less passionate. Also, from your writings and speeches, I doubt very much you will stop promoting the Public Understanding of Science. That would seem to be bred into you. For that, and all your other accomplishments, I salute you.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #125125 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 2:21 am

Sir, I hope your exit was either your own choice, or due to a time limit imposed on incumbents. I would hate to think your more recent books and public visibility caused Oxford to ease you out in favour of someone less passionate.

Nothing of the kind, I assure you. I have simply reached the mandatory retirement age.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

9. Comment #125128 by LorienRyan on February 11, 2008 at 2:24 am

Big shoes to fill. Thank you Richard Dawkins. Your work in occupying this chair has been one of the reasons for my 'coming out' from the darkness that is religion, and have demonstrated the wonder of truth through science so effectively. All the best.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

10. Comment #125130 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 2:27 am

Nothing of the kind, I assure you. I have simply reached the mandatory retirement age.
Richard

This is why the suggestion of the excellent Steve Jones (made in comment 3) would probably not be appropriate. Being only 4 years younger than Richard Dawkins, he would not be in the position long.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

11. Comment #125131 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 2:29 am

Don't worry, you are not getting rid of me that easily! Retirement from the Oxford Chair will free me up to be even more strident, shrill etc etc etc. I expect to be busier than ever, with two Foundations to run (the British and American branches of RDFRS), books to write (I have already started the next one) and who knows what else?
Richard

Excellent! The shriller and more strident, the better.

A whole new generation needs your attention, and it seems to me you've never been more in your stride. You certainly opened my eyes, and I hope you continue to perform the same service for many others.

Thanks for everything so far, and Happy Busy Retirement!

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

12. Comment #125132 by Matt H. on February 11, 2008 at 2:31 am

Happy retirement Professor, though as you say you'll be keeping busy. I'm glad to hear you say you've started your next book. Pray tell us, is it the children's book on free thought you were hinting at last year?

Other Comments by Matt H.

13. Comment #125134 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 2:33 am

Excellent! The shriller and more strident, the better.

It does make me wonder how the opponents of reason will cope in terms of language. Have already described Richard Dawkins as "extreme" and "fundamentalist"... surely words will fail them.

I would wish "Happy Retirement", but it sounds like a quiet life is the last thing on Richard's mind (fortunately for us).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #125136 by NewSkeptic on February 11, 2008 at 2:38 am

Professor Dawkins,

I just want to endorse the comments already made by Styrer and others, wish you a Happy 'Retirement' and say that I very much look forward to your next contribution to the raising of the public's consciousness of the wonder and clarity of science.

Best Wishes, James.

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

15. Comment #125139 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 2:41 am

...surely words will fail them.

Wouldn't count on it. They'll bang on as is their wont, and at least keep the Hitch happy with fun-filled hours of disputation.

As for Richard, his temperate language (however much the faithheads wish to continuously remind us of their ignorance by terming it 'shrill' etc.) is more required in the public arena than ever. I'm looking forward to his taking his 'stridency' to a whole new level!

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

16. Comment #125140 by DerrickB on February 11, 2008 at 2:42 am

An incredible challenge for anyone trying to follow in Richard's footsteps! Reasonable Humanity owes a very large debt to Professor Dawkins.

However, I do have a suggestion, and though he is not a scientist Simonyi's description seems to fit him perfectly:

"In order to accomplish the above goals, the appointees to the chair must have a pedagogical range that goes beyond the traditional university setting. They should be able to communicate effectively with audiences of all kinds and in different media. Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour. Naturally, they will interact with political, religious, and other societal forces, but they must not, under any circumstances, let these forces affect the scientific validity of what they say. Conversely, they should be also candid about the limits of scientific knowledge at any given time, and communicate the uncertainties, frustrations, scientifically perplexing phenomena, and even the failures in their area of expertise."

Anyone who has read his books - especially "A Short History of Nearly Everything" will know that this describes Bill Bryson perfectly.

Other Comments by DerrickB

17. Comment #125141 by CJ22 on February 11, 2008 at 2:49 am

Heck, Bill Bryson gets my vote. His work on the English language and on what-we-don't-know-about-Shakespeare were interesting too, but not sciencey enough I'm sure.

Other Comments by CJ22

18. Comment #125142 by christianjb on February 11, 2008 at 2:51 am

I nominate either of the following theoretical physicists/philosophers of science:

Max Tegmark of MIT
Christopher Isham of Imperial College
Huw Price of University of Sydney

The above have devoted their careers to answering the big questions: The nature of time and space, identity, the limits of logic and mathematics and the structure of science itself.

They are all inspiring visionaries who have not been afraid to think deeply about philosophy, science, mathematics, truth and beauty.

Other Comments by christianjb

19. Comment #125143 by Artful_Dodger on February 11, 2008 at 2:51 am

Is it a case of: "materialists only need apply"? If not, I'm sure that many non-materialist candidates would be more than eligible in every other respect. However I suspect that the di is cast in that respect.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

20. Comment #125146 by Peacebeuponme on February 11, 2008 at 2:56 am

Is it a case of: "materialists only need apply"? If not, I'm sure that many non-materialist candidates would be more than eligible in every other respect.

Rowan Williams perhaps?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

21. Comment #125149 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 2:57 am

My suggestion would be Baroness Susan Greenfield - a charismatic broadcaster, writer and respected brain researcher. Like Richard, she has presented the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. In 2000 she received the CBE for her contributions to the public understanding of science.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #125150 by Matt H. on February 11, 2008 at 3:00 am

What is the UK convention for a Professor's title after retirement? Do we still say "Prof. Dawkins" or will it become "Professor Emeritus Dawkins"?

Professor Emeritus is merely the Latin form for a full/chaired Professor who has retired in good standing. I think its pretty certain the University of Oxford will let him keep his title after his retirement. So he'll still be known as Professor (unless Richard himself comes on here to say otherwise). Nevertheless, there will still be people addressing him as 'Dr. Dawkins'....

Other Comments by Matt H.

23. Comment #125151 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:02 am

I'd like to echo the praise for your work so far and express my delight that this retirement from your post will leave you freer to accomplish many more years of progress in the foundations you have established.

For me, the suggestions of Adam Hart-Davis and Bill Bryson fall within one section of the perceptive article we are posting about; they are popularizers not world-renowned experts. No criticism attaches to that only that it's clear they are not the sort of people Simonyi intended for the role.

I also agree that the excellent Steve Jones would not be too long in the role before facing a similar deadline. I was impressed by Dr Hugh Montgomery's presentation of the Christmas lectures this last year so maybe he is heading down this particular path.

I'm sure the committee have a number of excellent candidates in mind and will choose well.

Other Comments by AllanW

24. Comment #125152 by Verylee on February 11, 2008 at 3:04 am

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King"...You have opened the eyes of so many, long may you continue to so and let's hope that one day all people everywhere will see what their "Kings" are really wearing.

Other Comments by Verylee

25. Comment #125154 by mmurray on February 11, 2008 at 3:10 am

I don't think Bill Bryson would satisfy the selection criteria

The starting point is likely to be a specific field of science, which may, as well as the natural, medical and mathematical sciences, include the history of science and the philosophy of science. He or she will be an accomplished scholar who has made original contributions in his or her field, and who is able to address the subject, where necessary, at the highest levels of abstraction,

Follow the link at the top of the page for the job ad.

Pity Sam Harris didn't have a bit more track record.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

26. Comment #125155 by mmurray on February 11, 2008 at 3:12 am

Nevertheless, there will still be people addressing him as 'Dr. Dawkins'....

Unless of course the Queen decides to touch him on the shoulders with her sword ... :-)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

27. Comment #125156 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 3:12 am

Do we still say "Prof. Dawkins" or will it become "Professor Emeritus Dawkins"?

I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Thank you for the kind words, but the thread is not really supposed to be about me but about suggestions for my successor and especially about Charles Simonyi's wonderful manifesto.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

28. Comment #125158 by mmurray on February 11, 2008 at 3:16 am

non-materialist candidates

Good idea they should allow ghosts to apply. In which case I would go for Darwin.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

29. Comment #125161 by irate_atheist on February 11, 2008 at 3:18 am

As one chapter in life closes, another opens.

I hope you enjoy your time and freedom, even more so than you have done so far.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

30. Comment #125164 by Matt H. on February 11, 2008 at 3:19 am

Unless of course the Queen decides to touch him on the shoulders with her sword ... :-)

Michael

That would be wonderful, although of course it is the government's decision, not Her Majesty's. But such an appointment would be long overdue! I can't speak for the general public at large, but he's certainly boosted my own understanding of science.

Back to the topic at hand, I think Bill Bryson is a fine public intellectual but is he really suited for the post? I doubt it. I wish I could nominate someone who is, but my knowledge of prominent, unchaired scientists is rather limited.

Other Comments by Matt H.

31. Comment #125165 by BigC on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

I'd love to see Sir David Attenborough get the job, but I'm guessing that he would also be too old, and may not be seen as "academic" enough.

He has no doubt taught the public more about the natural world than almost anyone else and is one of the most trusted figures amongst the general public in the UK and beyond.

Other Comments by BigC

32. Comment #125166 by queen5102 on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

What about Sir Harry Kroto? He is very involved in projects to educate the public about science.

Other Comments by queen5102

33. Comment #125167 by gcdavis on February 11, 2008 at 3:22 am

I'll second Steve Jones!

and for the Public Misunderstanding of Science, anyone have a candidate?

Other Comments by gcdavis

34. Comment #125170 by bamboospitfire on February 11, 2008 at 3:25 am

What shoes to fill; what an act to follow. I shall look forward to confirmation of the new appointment with interest. Professor Dawkins's successor has his/her work cut out!

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

35. Comment #125173 by GBile on February 11, 2008 at 3:27 am

Gee, I am also 'retiring' in september 2008. Apart from other things, I intend to brush of some rust of my Golf-game. Could we meet on a Golfcourse somewhere Professor? You certainly deserve some leasure time.

Other Comments by GBile

36. Comment #125175 by LorienRyan on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 am

A possible candidate that springs to mind for me is V.S. Ramachandran.

http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramabio.html

Other Comments by LorienRyan

37. Comment #125176 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 am

I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Thank you for the kind words, but the thread is not really supposed to be about me but about suggestions for my successor and especially about Charles Simonyi's wonderful manifesto.

Richard

That's a tall order, Richard, as your accomplished work has more or less made the manifesto your own since its inception.

There is a welcome - and unfortunately prophetic - warning on not 'dumbing down' in the words 'The public's expectation of scholars is high, and it is only fitting that we have a high expectation of the public.' At least Richard has rigorously stuck to this, if not others. Would it were always so, in every field.

Steven Pinker is my suggestion.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

38. Comment #125178 by mmurray on February 11, 2008 at 3:32 am

What about Sir Harry Kroto? He is very involved in projects to educate the public about science.

2 years older than Richard according to wiki

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

39. Comment #125181 by Noodly on February 11, 2008 at 3:33 am

... is it the children's book on free thought you were hinting at last year?

Let's hope so. There definitely is a gap for a "big answers to big questions" science book for very young children.

When my own kids were around 3 to 5 years old I was amazed at the constant stream of questions that were asked on everything from "where does milk come from?" to "why is the moon not very big?" Their capacity for wonder knew no bounds. I could answer most of their queries, but when it came to the "who made the earth?" type stuff I could only say that "I think no one made it, but other people think God did".

Very few non-religious books tackle this sort of question for kids at pre-school/elementary age, probably because they're deemed to be too young to understand - yet they can learn a foreign language quicker than most adults.

One profound event occurred while we were "tidying up" the front garden one evening at dusk when my 3 year old spotted the full moon. We then went round the back of the house and he spotted the moon again, asking me "why are there two moons daddy?" I had a sort of epiphany when I realised that we're all, at best, three year olds in terms of our understanding of what really makes the universe tick.

Other Comments by Noodly

40. Comment #125182 by Matt H. on February 11, 2008 at 3:34 am

and for the Public Misunderstanding of Science, anyone have a candidate?

Ah! I'm trying to think a prominent British creationist but my memory fails me. Maybe Ben Stein should be invited to take such a role? Either him or Ken Ham.

Other Comments by Matt H.

41. Comment #125186 by retrotransposon on February 11, 2008 at 3:48 am

Dear Richard, thanks for the many books and articles you wrote. They opened my eyes to the wonderful world of science, especially the science of evolution. Indeed, your writings are a major reason why I became a biologist. Thanks for inspiring me and thanks for inspiring a whole generation of scientists, science students and people who are simply interested in science. You have raised our consciousness about the world and demanded that we think for ourselves. happy retirement.

On the subject of the next appointee to the Simonyi Professorship, I think the person to succeed Richard should be a physicist. Richard has raised our consciousness in the field of biology, maybe its time that the wonderful world of physics can be presented to the public in such a way that it can be enjoyed by the rest of us, just like what Richard did with evolution and biology.

Other Comments by retrotransposon

42. Comment #125187 by Paula Kirby on February 11, 2008 at 3:49 am

I am entirely with those who are expressing their thanks to Richard Dawkins and wondering who on earth is going to be up to the task of replacing him ... but, since his retirement is still some months away and since (thank goodness) he has promised us that he has no intention of ceasing to roar, I'd like to focus my comments on Charles Simonyi himself.

If anyone has just skimmed his manifesto above, it's well worth reading in full. It is an outpouring of love of science, love of knowledge, the desire to educate, excitement at the wonders of the world and a generosity of mind that are reminiscent of Richard's own writings. The clarity of the vision, the willingness to be flexible in its implementation, the dedication to real scholarship (and the implicit rejection of anything resembling "dumbing down") and the wisdom of recognising that the ability to educate and communicate is even more crucial to the impact of this post than scientific knowledge alone - these are all rare and remarkable qualities.

Business has a bad name (often undeserved, I might add), big business even more so; but in my work I deal extensively with all three sectors - private, public and academic - and there is no doubt that there is NOTHING so effective at making things happen as a fired-up entrepreneur! How wonderful to see the sheer drive, determination, energy, vision and commitment that make for successful business applied to something as worthwhile as the promotion of science.

The words of Charles Simonyi's manifesto are absolutely right: the dearth of effective information flow between science and society is dangerous. Thanks to Richard Dawkins for tackling this issue so effectively in the last 12 years or so; good luck and best wishes to his successor, whoever that is; but let's not forget to express our thanks to Charles Simonyi too - without his vision, commitment and generosity with his resources science would face an even tougher struggle in the battle against unreason.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

43. Comment #125192 by NewSkeptic on February 11, 2008 at 3:54 am

Can I suggest Neil de Grasse Tyson?

Is there any grounds on which he wouldn't qualify? He's an excellent communicator. Is his contribution to his field sufficient for him to be a serious candidate?

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

44. Comment #125194 by Matt H. on February 11, 2008 at 3:59 am

I am going to risk looking realy dumb once again and ask, w/ no intentional disrespect, who is Charles Simonyi? T photo showed him in a space suit. Was he on t shuttle? If no, then why is he wearing t suit? And if yes , then how did an astronot come to have such inflluenc at Oxford?

His excellent manifesto that Richard continues to refer to is a good starting point. You might find this interesting too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Simonyi

Other Comments by Matt H.

45. Comment #125196 by Noodly on February 11, 2008 at 4:02 am

I am going to risk looking realy dumb once again and ask, w/ no intentional disrespect, who is Charles Simonyi?

May I suggest you google the name, the Wikipedia entry for anyone remotely famous will appear near the top.

To cut a long story short, he made his money as a senior software architect at Microsoft.

Other Comments by Noodly

46. Comment #125198 by Mike in FNQ on February 11, 2008 at 4:03 am

I wonder if they should have an American... I think Robert Sapolsky could pick up exactly where Richard Dawkins is leaving off; both in educating people about science in an enjoyable way and continuing to express the Humanistic world view.

Or, if a non-biologist is preferred, Sir Martin Rees has struck me as a good writer and speaker on the subject of science.

Other Comments by Mike in FNQ

47. Comment #125199 by MPhil on February 11, 2008 at 4:03 am

I think a cognitive neuro-scientist would be the best option, as this is the youngest and most promising field of scientific inquiry. Barely existent for two decades, the cognitive neurosciences have given us insight into one of the last and deepest 'mysteries' (or rather 'puzzles') - the mind.

Consciousness should be raised that the mind is also a product of nature, it is the function of the brain.
Too many people still labour under the misapprehension that the mind is something 'magical'. Too little people know about the wonders of the human brain, the most complex, organized piece of matter known to humankind, and how it produces consciousness.

I think it is time for raising the public understanding specifically of the cognitive neurosciences.

Other Comments by MPhil

48. Comment #125200 by Kimpatsu on February 11, 2008 at 4:04 am

What about Roger Penrose or Victor Stenger? Both physicists, both atheists, and both authors of popular science books.
I do feel awkward about calling Prof. Dawkins "Richard", though...

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

49. Comment #125202 by Steve Zara on February 11, 2008 at 4:08 am

What about Roger Penrose or Victor Stenger? Both physicists, both atheists, and both authors of popular science books.

Age is the problem here. There is little point suggesting people at or above the age of 60, when Richard is leaving the position because of compulsory retirement at a certain age.

I think it is time for raising the public understanding specifically of the cognitive neurosciences.

One of the reasons I suggested Baroness Greenfield - young enough, public profile, already awarded for promoting public understanding of science, TV experience, writer of popular science books...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #125204 by Richard Morgan on February 11, 2008 at 4:12 am

Here are instructions for being a pigeon:

1. Walk around aimlessly for a while, pecking at cigarette butts and other inappropriate items.
2. Take fright at someone walking along the platform and fly off to a girder.
3. Have a shit.
4. Repeat.
-- (Notes from a Small Island,Bill Bryson 1995)

Not even Skinner had this depth of understanding of pigeons. LOL

Bill Bryson? Why not? I can handle science at this level.
Seriously though, I go with Steve Zara here - Baroness Susan Greenfield.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next | Last