Question It's been stated at many places on this site that logical philosophical argument has the unique ability to garner universal recognition of its validity, whereas appeals to emotions, faith or the like presumably do not. If this is the case, why wouldn't a philosopher exercise his right to free speech in this country and make a serious political difference? Say a Professor of Logic doesn't like President George Bush. It would seem not such a time-consuming or difficult task for him to point out, perhaps in a <i>NY Times</i> Editorial article, the lack of logical connections in claims the President has made. Philosophers seem to me to be rather withdrawn by nature. They have the ability to refute prominent arguments out there in the world, but are too reclusive and anti-outspoken to do this. Perhaps this is to blame, more than anything else, for the low level of discourse, in terms of logical content, out there?

Accepted:
May 27, 2007

Comments

I agree that philosophers -- and not just professors of logic but especially also moral and political philosophers -- ought to play a much greater role in public political debate in the US. Our country contrasts here with many European countries where -- thanks to extensive media access -- the name recognition of the leading philosophers (e.g., Juergen Habermas) is vastly higher than that of our leading philosophers (e.g., John Rawls) is in the US.

The reasons are complex. I don't think it's merely a matter of getting academics to submit OpEds to the New York Times and similar outlets. Another important factor is that the US media will simply decline to print academic comentary outside the mainstream. Here again the contrast to Europe is interesting. I have tried on numerous occasions to get important comments published in the media. I have found this to be difficult in Europe (including the UK) and vastly more difficult in the US. The reason given for rejection is typically that, while the point made is surely important, our readers are not really interested in it. Of course, readers are not interested in it because they never learn about it in the first place.

Here is an example. The first Millennium Development Goal proclaimed by the UN in the year 2000 under the label of "halfing extreme poverty by 2015" is a clever revision of a goal proclaimed four years earlier, under the same label, at the World Food Summit in Rome. On the 1996 interpretation, the goal was to reduce the number of extremely poor persons to half the 1996 number, namely to 548 million. On the 2000 interpretation, the goal was to reduce the percentage of people in the developing countries who are extremely poor to half the 1990 level, i.e. to 883 million. The number to people whose extreme poverty in 2015 is to be regarded as morally acceptable was revised upward by 335 million. Surely, a revision of this magnitude is something citizens ought to be informed about!

I published an academic essay about this and also tried to place a brief account of the revisions in the media. I succeeded in Europe, I failed completely in the US. I suspect the reason for the difference is partly inertia (critical media and a critical public are mutually reinforcing; and similarly the lack of either reinforces the lack of the other). Another cause is the greater commercialization of the US media who depend on advertisers more than on consumers; and advertisers want you to think that the present globalization move is morally unproblematic and beneficial to all (a belief sustained by pronouncements of success in achieving easy targets).