C P Snow – Another Case of Why So Smart yet So Dumb

I write this having just re-read C P Snow’s book The Two Cultures, which contains the text of his original 1959 lecture and the 1963 essay which he called The Two Cultures: A Second Look.

I first read this book back in the 1980s, and decided to read it one more time to locate a particular sentence that I want to use in a work of fiction. Putting the words of real life people (scientists, engineers, and technologists) into the mouths of fictional characters is one of the techniques I use. I have found scientists, and their cousins in engineering and technology, to be a rich source of dialogue which can be used to highlight their rather peculiar beliefs and the nonsense that they often speak, which reveals also their silent narratives. Anne Glover is a very good example of a scientist speaking such nonsense, and her particular distorted views of the world have been the subject of a number of my recent blogs, where I have revealed her silent narratives. And using the words spoken by scientists, either in fiction or non-fiction, to reveal their silent narratives and to expose what lies behind the words – values, beliefs, delusions, denial, self-constructed realities, biases, etc. – lies at the core of what I do. C P Snow’s book is a gold mind of nonsense (as is Anne Glover).

His book is not all nonsense of course, but his silent narrative can be seen as a manifestation of the question that I keep asking about such people: why so smart yet so dumb? This one can say is a disease afflicting the European mind, and it is an illness particularly to be found among scientists, engineers, technologists, economists, and people bound up in the industrial era techno-science, capitalist paradigm, which keeps the European mind bound to the past. And it is not just these groups that are locked into the past – social scientists, artists, and others also share this view of the world, such is its contagious nature.

At the beginning of his lecture, Snow states that: “By training I was a scientist: by vocation I was a writer.” Not so! Snow was a scientist who wrote. There is a difference! Snow had his feet and mind firmly planted in science. The quality of his thoughts and reflections are mundane, and reflect the output of a mind trained and conditioned by science, which has its place in the research laboratory, where it is effective, but this is where it should be contained. Tigers are best kept in their natural habitat, where they can do what they do, but that is where they belong. Put them into the human world, and what follows is inevitable!

In comparison to his contemporaries – such as Rachel Carson (Silent Spring), Arthur Koestler (The Sleepwalkers, The Act of Creation, and more), Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), and Michael Polanyi (Scientific Thought and Social Reality) – Snow is merely expressing opinions of the kind one would expect to hear expressed in a bar room. Educated opinions no doubt, but certainly not the work of a mind with the mental skills needed for the critique and analysis that Snow attempted. If indeed there are two cultures (or more), then they are most likely to be found by considering the cognitive styles and skills that relate to different types of human activities, as well as in values, beliefs, etc. This is not something that Snow gives proper recognition to, but which can be found when exploring the subject of disciplinary differences in a systematic way, and some understanding of this can be found in the above mentioned work of his contemporaries. As I often say – it’s all about behaviour! Snow’s book is perhaps just one piece of evidence demonstrating that there are significant differences in cognitive styles and skills – a case of horses for courses, which means that what is suitable for one person or situation is unsuitable for another. Those who appoint people as Chief Scientific Advisors should take note of this!

Before moving on, I would also mention here that this book by Snow is not about Two Cultures, but one that primarily addresses the divide between the rich and the poor. This point he emphasises in Second Look. That the book is often quoted, mentioned, referenced as being relevant to the disciplinary divides in society, like for example between art and science, or art and technology, is strange, for the book has very little to say about any disciplinary divides, nor does it offer much in the way of insights. Are we here dealing with a book like Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which, as Charles Handy once noted, must be one of the least read but most often referenced books of all time?

What Snow’s book does however demonstrate, is the construction of shared realities, silent narratives, and myths, by scientists. This is evident in many places throughout the book, but becomes explicit in Second Look, when Snow starts to criticise those with a romantic view of the past, and their myth that prior to the industrial revolution, life was idyllic. He criticises such people and brands them as Luddites, which is a common mistake made by scientific types. They mistakenly see Luddism as a reactionary movement against progress (by which they mean new technology) where in fact it was a movement brought about by the lack of progress of the type that is far more important than new technology – the type of progress that I will soon turn my attention to. For the moment, I will restrict my comments to saying that Luddites made a statement that people are not machines, and should not be treated as such, which is exactly how science and capitalism view people.

Snow, after criticising the romantic myth, then demonstrates the construction of another myth, the scientific one:

“Millions of individual lives, in some lucky countries like our own, have, by one gigantic convulsion of applied science over the last hundred and fifty years, been granted some share of the primal things. Billions of individual lives, over the rest of the world, will be granted or will seize the same. This is the indication of time’s arrow.”

Snow however conveniently disregards the fact that the agricultural labourer of the 18^th century, did not suddenly find himself living in a paradise once industrialisation arrived, simply by offering him the opportunity to work in a factory. Swapping the oppression of the land owner for that of the factory owner was no progress, as the Luddites clearly showed. Most ordinary people living in the mid-19^th century lived in the same squalor and poverty that existed 100 years earlier, only the circumstances were different (perhaps worse).

History reveals a story of a continuous battle between the vested interests of the few, and the rights and interests of the many. It is a battle as old as civilisation, and what can be said of the role of applied science in these battles? In the fight to abolish the slave trade and slavery, what role did applied science have here? In establishing the rights of ordinary people to organise themselves through trade unions, what did applied science contribute? When laws were introduced to protect young children by making unlawful their employment in factories, was it applied science that led to these laws? Was free education for all the product applied science? In the fight to achieve universal suffrage, what use was applied science? What leading role did applied science play in the introduction of social security benefits? Our National Health Service, providing free healthcare at point of need and use – was this the product of applied science? And in recent times, what can be said of applied science’s contribution to establishing our current legal basis for equality?

The above are the elements of which great leaps forward have been made, the type of progress that Luddites yearned for, but which was not forthcoming from industry nor applied science. This real and meaningful progress did not in fact begin to appear in a significant manner until the 20^th century, which has been described as the people’s century, and which clearly demonstrates both the negative aspects of science and technology, and the importance of progress defined not by science and technology, but by being human and treating humans as humans, and not as faceless and nameless entities, whose only utility is an economic one. It is a lesson that has not yet been learned.

It would of course be unfair to say that applied science has not contributed to the improvement of human lives. That is not the point. What I want to do is to place the benefits of science in proper prospective, but Snow, like most scientists, looks at the human world and sees the benefits of applied science, and ignores the fact that other forces and intentions were at work, and what he sees is actually the result of a complex process, in which applied science has played some part, but certainly not the most important, except perhaps in the area of medical science and treatments, but that too was dependent upon the notion of (free) healthcare for all, regardless of class and financial standing. Without such a radical social reform, there would have been no advances in medical science and treatments for the vast majority of people (as is well demonstrated in the United States).

But the fragmented and reductionist mind does not see this, because it has lost the ability to see the bigger picture. Snow was one these fragmented thinkers. There are many more, and their number and influence grows. And as Snow demonstrates (as do people like Richard Dawkins), education does not offer a solution.

Snow (like Dawkins and Glover) can be seen as nature’s proof that scientists should not be involved in policy making. They can provide inputs yes, but that is not what they want. They believe that their world view is more important than any other, that they are the sole bearers of the truth, and they seek power by means most undemocratic to impose on others a technocracy – the rule of science and reason. And when they are challenged they become visceral as do all who live their lives in the self-imposed prison that is called dogma. Moreover, because they are scientists, they do not see this, and cannot foresee the consequences of their actions – for them there are no consequences!

In my novel Moments in Time, the central character is one of these technocratic people with a fragmented mind. But gradually he starts to understand as the consequences of his actions begin to have a personal impact – sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. And understanding the consequences of their actions is something that all those bound up in dogma, be it scientific, religious, political or economic are capable of. In the novel, there is a point where the central character states:

“Do you not know that we invent, that we are the creators of the modern world? Intensive care technology, pharmaceuticals, mobile phones, cars, domestic appliances, computers, trains, central heating, deodorants, fast food, throwaway cups, tasteless vegetables, overcrowded roads, mountains of discarded plastics, chemical weapons, unnecessary energy consumption, mindless and repetitive manual work, dwindling oil reserves, environmental pollution, global warming, loss of biodiversity, nuclear reactors that melt down … Yes, indeed, we create the best of all possible worlds, …”

Prior to this moment in time however, he would not have said this, or if he had, the sentence would not have included all the negative things that are the product of a science and technology that is no longer fit for purpose. The understanding that modern science, technology and engineering are at the heart of our problems is something that the central character in the story slowly comes to realise. But Snow does not recognise this, and indeed he could easily be placed within the setting of Voltaire’s novel Candide, where, even after the experiences faced by the characters, all the death, destruction, injustice, etc., Snow would still be there at the end saying “All is for the best, in this best of all possible worlds.”

But I conclude on a more positive note concerning Snow’s book. At the very end of A Second Look, he states: “Scientists can give bad advice and decision-makers can’t know whether it is good or bad.” Did I not say that the book was not total nonsense? And here we are back to the matter of Anne Glover, and how a President of the European Commission will ever know that her advice, or more correctly her version of the truth, the words that she whispers into his ear behind closed doors, is good or bad? And such a statement points to the need for a different and more sophisticated approach to policy-making than that which scientists like Anne Glover are able to imagine. Suffering from the affliction why so smart yet so dumb, will in the end lead to …

It takes a special set of circumstances of the kind that the character in Moments in Time experiences, for the unbreakable chains that bind Prometheus to the rock of the past to be smashed and for people to be set free. Now is the time to create these exceptional circumstances, and about this I will have more to say in due course.

Open Letter to Mr Junker, President to be of the European Commission – On the Matter of Chief Scientific Advisor, and Anne Glover in Particular

Dear Mr Junker,

I note that you have deferred the decision on whether you will or will not have a Chief Scientific Advisor.

Whether or not the post of Chief Scientific Advisor is needed is something for public discussion, as is the process by which such a post should be filled, along with the means of monitoring the appointee’s activities. Improvements to policy making processes are also something worth discussing, but one should not look to the natural sciences for insights here (notice I did not say evidence), but to philosophy of science and to cognitive psychology, particularly the work of the Nobel Prize winning, Professor Daniel Kahneman, who would I think, be amused by the very naïve remarks that scientists make about being objective, rational, unbiased, independent, and so forth. Here one can observe that there is nothing more irrational than claiming to be rational, and nothing more subjective than claiming to be objective. And as for claims of independence, there is nothing stranger than humans and their beliefs (as Kahneman has often observed)!

The above apart however, there is still the matter of Anne Glover, and the fact that there is such a matter, is in itself a warning sign that there is something fundamentally wrong, both in terms of the way the post of Chief Scientific Advisor is constituted, and with the person currently holding the post.

If you were to seek a means to reinforce the image of a lack of democratic process and values in the institutions of the European Union, and to communicate the message (to a public that is increasingly hostile to the European Union) that its institutions are outdated and rooted in values from times long past, then you need look no further than Anne Glover. She is a person who can be well summarised as, a case study in the failure of democratic processes and values. Some will also say she is yet another step along Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.

She stands as a warning of worse to come – the re-emergence of technocracy. And, as for the “best” evidence of her technocratic inclinations, one needs look no further than her public pronouncements and the comments that she has associated herself with:

“People can have their own opinions, but not their own facts.”

“Science is currently not in the room when the decisions are made and this cannot continue like this.”

“Political decisions should be based on science.”

“In an ideal world, in which policies were based on peer reviewed scientific data, policies would evolve but would not change from one government to another.”

“If it is politically acceptable to decide not to base a final policy on data and science, this should be transparent and clear.”

What she is saying is this: “When people are allowed to choose, they choose wrongly. Only science is in possession of the truth and this truth will be determined by scientists based on current orthodoxy. Scientists know what is best for the common good. Politicians should do what scientists tell them to do because scientists are in possession of the truth, which is something only they can understand. Those that are in possession of different truths are wrong and suffering from a deficit. Science has a right, that no other group has, to participate in the government of the people, and scientists do not have to be elected to these governing roles through democratic process. When politicians do not do what they are told, they have to tell the people that this is the case.”

Does this sound familiar? It should do, but in case it does not, consider the above as it might have been written in times long past:

“When people are allowed to choose, they choose wrongly. Only religion is in possession of the truth and this truth will be determined by priests based on current orthodoxy. Priests know what is best for the common good. Politicians should do what priests tell them to do because priests are in possession of the truth, which is something only they can understand. Those that are in possession of different truths are wrong and are heretics. Religion has a right, that no other group has, to participate in the government of the people, and priests do not have to be elected to these governing roles through democratic process. When politicians do not do what they are told, they have to tell the people that this is the case.”

You would not accept theocracy so why accept technocracy? They are but the same things, but with different names, and they both lead to the same disastrous outcomes.

Anne Glover is a technocrat. She is not just proposing a fundamental change to the government of the people without their consent, but has used her office to undertake a political campaign to implement these changes, in a way that is only possible in an undemocratic institution such as the European Commission. See now why so many people want to leave the European Union? It is a matter of preserving democracy, which, in the end, is far more important than the economic prosperity of a society that already has more than its fair share of material things.

Paraphrasing another technocrat from the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the infamous, discredited, and highly deluded, Frederick Winslow Taylor (the father of the nonsense that is Scientific Management) Ann Glover is advocating the following:

“Under our system of government we will tell politicians what to do and how they are to do it and any improvement they make upon the instructions given to them will be fatal to success.”

The above is a system of government that can only be maintained through authoritarianism and totalitarianism, which is Hayek’s point, and the model for this is the Soviet Union. It is one thing to use information (not evidence) provided by science to support policy development, quite another thing to place science in a central role that seeks to usurp the wishes of the people in the name of some elusive concept known as the truth, which history demonstrates is usually nothing more than dogma, based on one groups misguided belief that they have more legitimacy than others.

Mikhail Gorbachev, in the dying days of the Soviet Empire said, “the party does not lay claim to being the sole bearers of the truth.” It was a telling remark about the nature of Communism and its silent narrative that it was the sole source of the truth. What Anne Glover is laying claim to, is that science is the sole bearer of the truth and in doing so she is laying the foundations, through her naivety, for the beginnings of a Soviet style European Union – a technocracy. Have we learned nothing from the tragedy that was the 20^th century? Apparently not!

It is within your power to stop this slide towards technocracy. History has shown us that there are none so dangerous as those who think they know the truth. Anne Glover is such as person, so send her back to where she belongs, to her micro world of the laboratory. Future generations will thank you for this, for it only takes the right social, economic, and political conditions – the ones that Western Civilisation are currently creating – for Anne Glover’s way, and worse, to look like attractive options. Now is the time to act to stop this happening.

And to conclude, I make a summarising comment upon the nonsense of Anne Glover and her beliefs, by paraphrasing Thomas Paine:

“One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of having scientists involved in policy making, of having chief scientific advisors who believe that they have a right to govern and who are able to reveal the truth, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn such people into ridicule by giving us an ass for a lion.”

Sincerely yours,

Paul T Kidd

The Narcissistic Chief Scientific Advisor

Into the deep dark pool she stares, trapped in an eternal glance, held there by the love she has for her own self-image, unable now to she herself, and the rest, for what they actually are. By her side, the artist in residence sits, gazing into the deep water, for she too has fallen in love with this self-image. And she whispers that which the Chief Scientific Advisor wants to hear – “I am passionate by science” she says, “so let us communicate together to all those who, as yet, have to fall in love with you, those who have yet to see the light of science and reason.”

And hovering above them, winged Nemesis is there. She has delivered her punishment for their hubris, and because of this curse, they do not understand that, what is looking back at them it is only an image of what they want to see. And with mind transfixed on this illusion, they will not notice the new science emerge, which comes not from the City of the Golden Stars, but from far distance shores, from cultures which, most Europeans do not respect, have not the slightest understanding of, nor any interest too. It is here, in these Eastern worlds, far beyond the notion of single truths and the one best way, that the future of science rests, and it will be a science that those caught-up in European ways, in Abrahamic thought, will struggle to adopt. Which is the point …

The Future of Europe is Not Science

Gathering this week in Portugal, the deluded and the damned, otherwise known as European scientists, along with their close allies known as industrialist, will discuss the notion that the Future of Europe is Science. At this science party rally, industrial era scientists and industrialists, both born in the same Enlightenment stable and sharing very similar dogmas, will discuss 21^st century issues, using their 18^th century minds.

On the agenda are topics such as improving human health and the condition of the environment, but being as they are, highly reductionist, with very fragmented minds, which think of the nature as a complex machine, it is unlikely that they will be recognising that many so called problems in the modern world are not problems at all, just symptoms of a science and industry that is bound up with a way of thinking and operating that is no longer fit for purpose. Instead, they will conspire together, in trying to deal with these symptoms, to create more problems. It will be very much a case of doing even more intensely, that which is the problem. As I said, they are the deluded and the damned.

The future of Europe is most definitely not science. The past was science, and a pretty messed up world science created, not to mention all the death and destruction that can be laid at the door of science, as well as some very perverse systems of government. And clearly many have not learned the lessons of the 20^th century, and once again technocracy and the madness of rational thinking is beginning to pave the way towards a new European horror, which is something that Europeans excel in creating.

The way ahead lies down a different route. Finding that route is the one of the most important challenges of our age. So far I have yet to find evidence that the challenge has been taken up in any significant way. Most of what I have discovered could be called, the existing system trying to regain legitimacy. There will be more about this in future blogs.

Hubris will always meet its Nemesis. The time for European science to meet its Nemesis has arrived. The future of Europe is a return to humanity, treating people better, and celebrating the oddities and the irrationalities that make people human. Those in power in Europe, or who are accruing power and influence, like scientists, need to stop seeing people in a utilitarian way, and above all, the system of which they are a part needs to halt the process of abandoning the people of Europe to the power of money.

More humanity is needed in policy making, not more of this perversity called European science. We need a different science, and one thing that is fairly certain is that the majority of those gathering in Portugal this week are not likely to be the ones who will develop it. For this we should look elsewhere, to a culture that is not founded on the Abrahamic obsession of revealing, of constructing, the sole truth.

And now the battle lines are drawn. It is time for peaceful resistance. It is time for people to begin to disengage from this unsustainable world created by Europeans – a world based on the European values of control, conquest and domination, and making a virtue out of living life like a plaque of locusts.

The weapon of choice is the pen – through the power of words the climate of thought will be changed. And the brush too will play its part. It is time for the Anne Glovers of the world to discover the real value of literature and art, and why over many years, all those authoritarian regimes restricted what writers and artists were allowed to do. And the Anne Glovers will also discover that, out of literature and art will emerge a new science quite different to the one that now toys with art, but largely on its own terms and conditions.

And it is here in this encounter that people will decide their future and that of their children, and their children, for be in no doubt, that once science and reason take power, there will be no way back, and, as I said at the end of my book Encounter with a Wise Man:

“I have also encountered, over the centuries, many people who have foolishly predicted the end of the world, yet life goes on. I am wise, hence I know not to make such predictions, but in many respects it would be better for you all if such end-of-the-world prophecies were to one day come true, for death will seem a better alternative to the hell that ideology will have created.”

Be in no doubt that science is an ideology – one with a very pernicious dogma that is ripe for ridicule, as are the why so smart yet so dumb people that so often make an ass of themselves in public.