Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Use this forum to discuss the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Sushan »

This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny.[2][3] As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU,[4] and was a special assistant to the president,[5] and later Ambassador, until 1993.[1] In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy,[6] including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.


And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 5005
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
And my response, Which one is better, an apple or a hammer? 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Sushan »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 9:02 am
Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
And my response, Which one is better, an apple or a hammer? 🤔
An apple is just a single food. One can eat it and then it will be over. There after nothing will be there. Or someone can think more generously, remain hungry, and decide to plant the seeds and get an apple tree.

A hammer can make more hammers, Bring apples down from an apple tree, or even help to find more food. So I think the hammer is better.

There are various ways to look at things, to compare things, and discuss. And there is a bigger part of this topic above the bolded text which is open for discussion as well.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6737
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny.[2][3] As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU,[4] and was a special assistant to the president,[5] and later Ambassador, until 1993.[1] In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy,[6] including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.


And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
Well your ultimate question presents a false choice. The answer is both have utility.

As to what Dr Berrah should have done, that is much easier. He clearly should have joined the diplomatic corps (as he did). There are no shortage of microbiology researchers at Yale. They are more or less interchangeable. Yes he would have made some discoveries had he stayed, but there is no evidence that the guy who replaced him didn't do as well or better than he would have. OTOH the Ivory Coast likely didn't have access to diplomats of his calibre.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 5005
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny.[2][3] As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU,[4] and was a special assistant to the president,[5] and later Ambassador, until 1993.[1] In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy,[6] including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.


And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful", and you ask if the scientist's decision was "a wise one", but you offer insufficient context to judge your case. You mention scientific breakthroughs that could be "of great use to the world", and doing "more to the world", but what world is this that you refer to? Is it the world in danger of eco-collapse because of the burning of fossil fuels, and so on? Is it the human cultural 'world', which ignores all other living things in the, er, 'world', and considers only human wishes or welfare? Is it the world of pop music and internet 'influencers', or the world of QAnon conspiracy theorists and 'preppers'?

You are you asking us to compare the benefit to the 'world' of peace versus scientific discovery, but how shall we do this? The answer must surely depend on the immediate circumstances surrounding your question. If 'the world' is in need of a scientific breakthrough, then a scientist is surely of greater use. But if the problem is war, and we need to stop it, then the services of a diplomat will surely achieve more.

Your question, as presented, is unanswerable, IMO.

As I tried to point out in my previous post, you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges:
The Free Dictionary wrote:Compare apples and oranges - To try to highlight the similarities between two different things — which typically cannot be done.
Full dictionary entry here.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3988
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by GE Morton »

Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am
Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?
Only he could tell you whether, in retrospect, his decision was a wise one. He had no duties to do anything "for the world." The only thing bearing on the wisdom of his decision is whether the career switch delivered more or less satisfaction to him.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 2:15 pm
Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny.[2][3] As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU,[4] and was a special assistant to the president,[5] and later Ambassador, until 1993.[1] In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy,[6] including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.


And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
Well your ultimate question presents a false choice. The answer is both have utility.

As to what Dr Berrah should have done, that is much easier. He clearly should have joined the diplomatic corps (as he did). There are no shortage of microbiology researchers at Yale. They are more or less interchangeable. Yes he would have made some discoveries had he stayed, but there is no evidence that the guy who replaced him didn't do as well or better than he would have. OTOH the Ivory Coast likely didn't have access to diplomats of his calibre.
I am simply having the belief that trying to keep humans in peace and harmony by others, negotiations between countries and various other parties are quite useless, since we all are humans. We are bound to change, so will be all the negotiations and peace treaties. Ultimately what a diplomat does will be a temporary solution. OTOH science is an evolving subject. Yes, there may not be a shortage of scientists, but I do not think having more will be an excess as well. The scientific discoveries will make the human life better, while diplomatic missions just add some stories to the human history, and this history always keep on repeating.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6737
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: December 7th, 2021, 12:52 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 2:15 pm
Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny.[2][3] As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU,[4] and was a special assistant to the president,[5] and later Ambassador, until 1993.[1] In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy,[6] including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.


And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
Well your ultimate question presents a false choice. The answer is both have utility.

As to what Dr Berrah should have done, that is much easier. He clearly should have joined the diplomatic corps (as he did). There are no shortage of microbiology researchers at Yale. They are more or less interchangeable. Yes he would have made some discoveries had he stayed, but there is no evidence that the guy who replaced him didn't do as well or better than he would have. OTOH the Ivory Coast likely didn't have access to diplomats of his calibre.
I am simply having the belief that trying to keep humans in peace and harmony by others, negotiations between countries and various other parties are quite useless, since we all are humans. We are bound to change, so will be all the negotiations and peace treaties. Ultimately what a diplomat does will be a temporary solution. OTOH science is an evolving subject. Yes, there may not be a shortage of scientists, but I do not think having more will be an excess as well. The scientific discoveries will make the human life better, while diplomatic missions just add some stories to the human history, and this history always keep on repeating.
Well no one notices the lives that weren't lost in the war that didn't happen. Or the refugees that weren't created in the border skirmish that was averted. Hence simplistic comments about the impact of diplomacy like yours.

As to scientific discoveries, I didn't hear any data that the guy who took over when he left Yale, didn't make even more and more important discoveries than he would have.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Sushan »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 3rd, 2021, 9:55 am
Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.
In 1965, Berrah became an adviser to the Foreign Ministry of Côte d'Ivoire and a close counselor for President Félix Houphouët-Boigny.[2][3] As a part of this work, he was part of the Ivory Coast delegation to United Nations General Assembly, the OAU,[4] and was a special assistant to the president,[5] and later Ambassador, until 1993.[1] In this role, he worked to further the nation's foreign affairs policy,[6] including diplomatic overtures to foreign leaders and working on Israeli-Palestinian relations.


And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful", and you ask if the scientist's decision was "a wise one", but you offer insufficient context to judge your case. You mention scientific breakthroughs that could be "of great use to the world", and doing "more to the world", but what world is this that you refer to? Is it the world in danger of eco-collapse because of the burning of fossil fuels, and so on? Is it the human cultural 'world', which ignores all other living things in the, er, 'world', and considers only human wishes or welfare? Is it the world of pop music and internet 'influencers', or the world of QAnon conspiracy theorists and 'preppers'?

You are you asking us to compare the benefit to the 'world' of peace versus scientific discovery, but how shall we do this? The answer must surely depend on the immediate circumstances surrounding your question. If 'the world' is in need of a scientific breakthrough, then a scientist is surely of greater use. But if the problem is war, and we need to stop it, then the services of a diplomat will surely achieve more.

Your question, as presented, is unanswerable, IMO.

As I tried to point out in my previous post, you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges:
The Free Dictionary wrote:Compare apples and oranges - To try to highlight the similarities between two different things — which typically cannot be done.
Full dictionary entry here.
Yes, the word 'world' can have different meanings. But if we consider something that can be applied both to a scientist and a diplomat, let's talk about the geopolitical world. And, yes, let's consider wars.

After finishing first world war a diplomatic effort was taken to prevent another world scale war from occurring. But the efforts lasted only several years. Seemingly the humans those days had no respect to diplomatic missions or decisions. Then came the second world war. Even after Germany fell, Japan was not willing to keep their arms down despite all the diplomatic efforts. Then the scientists came forward with the nuclear bombs, and we know what happened next. So scientists showed that they value more than diplomats in this particular situation.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Sushan »

GE Morton wrote: December 4th, 2021, 1:11 am
Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am
Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?
Only he could tell you whether, in retrospect, his decision was a wise one. He had no duties to do anything "for the world." The only thing bearing on the wisdom of his decision is whether the career switch delivered more or less satisfaction to him.
Satisfaction is a subjective experience. So his answer can be yes or no depending on his own reasons. Yes, no man comes to the world with designated duties, and it is up to the individual to decide whether to gain from the world or give something to it. But the world will asses you depending on what you give to others, but not depending on what you gained. So there is a weight to what others think about a person, and it applies to Dr. Ghoulem Berrah as well.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: December 7th, 2021, 8:27 pm
Sushan wrote: December 7th, 2021, 12:52 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 2:15 pm
Sushan wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 3:21 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah



Dr.Ghoulem Berrah was a professor of Virology at the University of Yale school of medicine before becoming a diplomat. He had developed a hypothesis on Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, and he had a major breakthrough on selective inhibition of DNA. He could have found many more scientific theories that could have been major breakthroughs and of great use to the world. But he resigned from his job and became a diplomat. In your opinion, was his decision a wise one? Could he have done more to the world as a scientist than what he did as a diplomat? On the other hand, have his attempts on peace actually been mattered, when we consider the current political situation of the conflicts that he tried to solve in his career?

Here is a summary of his career as a diplomat for your convenience from Wikipidea.



And my ultimate question, Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?
Well your ultimate question presents a false choice. The answer is both have utility.

As to what Dr Berrah should have done, that is much easier. He clearly should have joined the diplomatic corps (as he did). There are no shortage of microbiology researchers at Yale. They are more or less interchangeable. Yes he would have made some discoveries had he stayed, but there is no evidence that the guy who replaced him didn't do as well or better than he would have. OTOH the Ivory Coast likely didn't have access to diplomats of his calibre.
I am simply having the belief that trying to keep humans in peace and harmony by others, negotiations between countries and various other parties are quite useless, since we all are humans. We are bound to change, so will be all the negotiations and peace treaties. Ultimately what a diplomat does will be a temporary solution. OTOH science is an evolving subject. Yes, there may not be a shortage of scientists, but I do not think having more will be an excess as well. The scientific discoveries will make the human life better, while diplomatic missions just add some stories to the human history, and this history always keep on repeating.
Well no one notices the lives that weren't lost in the war that didn't happen. Or the refugees that weren't created in the border skirmish that was averted. Hence simplistic comments about the impact of diplomacy like yours.

As to scientific discoveries, I didn't hear any data that the guy who took over when he left Yale, didn't make even more and more important discoveries than he would have.
I am not sure whether we can compare two different people about something like scientific discoveries although they held the same appointment. The appointment or the logistics have a little to do to the innovations or breakthroughs of an individual. The skills are inherent and unique to a person. When such skills are directed in the correct way the correct and useful results will be produced. I think that direction was changed when Dr. Berrah left the field of science. Replacing him by another scientist has nothing to do with continuing the work what only Dr. Berrah could have done.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
GE Morton
Posts: 3988
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by GE Morton »

Sushan wrote: December 14th, 2021, 8:41 pm
GE Morton wrote: December 4th, 2021, 1:11 am
Only he could tell you whether, in retrospect, his decision was a wise one. He had no duties to do anything "for the world." The only thing bearing on the wisdom of his decision is whether the career switch delivered more or less satisfaction to him.
Satisfaction is a subjective experience. So his answer can be yes or no depending on his own reasons. Yes, no man comes to the world with designated duties, and it is up to the individual to decide whether to gain from the world or give something to it. But the world will asses you depending on what you give to others, but not depending on what you gained. So there is a weight to what others think about a person, and it applies to Dr. Ghoulem Berrah as well.
Whether that weight is felt by Berrah depends only upon how much he attaches to that assessment.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 6737
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: December 14th, 2021, 8:47 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 7th, 2021, 8:27 pm
Sushan wrote: December 7th, 2021, 12:52 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 2nd, 2021, 2:15 pm

Well your ultimate question presents a false choice. The answer is both have utility.

As to what Dr Berrah should have done, that is much easier. He clearly should have joined the diplomatic corps (as he did). There are no shortage of microbiology researchers at Yale. They are more or less interchangeable. Yes he would have made some discoveries had he stayed, but there is no evidence that the guy who replaced him didn't do as well or better than he would have. OTOH the Ivory Coast likely didn't have access to diplomats of his calibre.
I am simply having the belief that trying to keep humans in peace and harmony by others, negotiations between countries and various other parties are quite useless, since we all are humans. We are bound to change, so will be all the negotiations and peace treaties. Ultimately what a diplomat does will be a temporary solution. OTOH science is an evolving subject. Yes, there may not be a shortage of scientists, but I do not think having more will be an excess as well. The scientific discoveries will make the human life better, while diplomatic missions just add some stories to the human history, and this history always keep on repeating.
Well no one notices the lives that weren't lost in the war that didn't happen. Or the refugees that weren't created in the border skirmish that was averted. Hence simplistic comments about the impact of diplomacy like yours.

As to scientific discoveries, I didn't hear any data that the guy who took over when he left Yale, didn't make even more and more important discoveries than he would have.
I am not sure whether we can compare two different people about something like scientific discoveries although they held the same appointment. The appointment or the logistics have a little to do to the innovations or breakthroughs of an individual. The skills are inherent and unique to a person. When such skills are directed in the correct way the correct and useful results will be produced. I think that direction was changed when Dr. Berrah left the field of science. Replacing him by another scientist has nothing to do with continuing the work what only Dr. Berrah could have done.
Several things. First he got his PhD in 1963, he was hired as an assistant professor (didn't have tenure) and was gone by 1965, hardly enough time to accomplish anything at all. In fact, in my PubMed review of him, I could only find his PhD dissertation, ie no publications as a professor (only as a student). There is no evidence he would have gotten tenure, let alone been a leader in his field.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 5005
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 3rd, 2021, 9:55 am You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful" [...] you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges.
Sushan wrote: December 14th, 2021, 8:37 pm Yes, the word 'world' can have different meanings. But if we consider something that can be applied both to a scientist and a diplomat, let's talk about the geopolitical world. And, yes, let's consider wars.

After finishing first world war a diplomatic effort was taken to prevent another world scale war from occurring. But the efforts lasted only several years. Seemingly the humans those days had no respect to diplomatic missions or decisions. Then came the second world war. Even after Germany fell, Japan was not willing to keep their arms down despite all the diplomatic efforts. Then the scientists came forward with the nuclear bombs, and we know what happened next. So scientists showed that they value more than diplomats in this particular situation.
You really think so? <baffled> Oppenheimer, when he realised the potential for actual destruction in the real world that his team had created, was appalled. Too late, but better late than never, some might say.
Robert Oppenheimer wrote:As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.
Your previous posts have used phrases like "better for the world", and so I wonder, do you think the creation of nuclear weapons contributed to the betterment of the world?

P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped. The military rushed to drop them - to try out their shiny new toy - before the news of Japan's surrender became known, and prevented their strike. Was it politicians or scientists that did that? I don't know. Are senior soldiers neither, or both?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3988
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Which one is more useful, a scientist or a diplomat?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 15th, 2021, 8:59 am
P.S. Japan was not as resistant as you describe. They had already surrendered when the bombs were dropped.
That is false. The Soviets declared war on Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, and launched their invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria on Aug. 9. The atomic bombs were dropped on Aug 6 and 9. The Japanese surrendered on Aug 15. Soviet entry into the war was certainly a factor in Japan's decision surrender, but the surrender did not precede the bombings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2 ... panese_War
Post Reply

Return to “A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021