Through education and self-knowledge...abolish war, poverty and disease...so said Bertrand Russell in 1960

Bertrand Russell [Wikipedia]

Bertrand Russell [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

The intellectual and moral...advice from Bertrand Russell

I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral.

The intellectual thing I should want to say is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.

The moral thing I should wish to say…I should say love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way and if we are to live together and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.

Bertrand Russell and "Life" magazine

April 1st, 1940

Google

Bertrand Russell...critical thinker

Bertrand Russell

Alan Watts Interviews Bertrand Russell; Trend of Philosophy

Wikipedia:

Philosophy of science:

Russell frequently claimed that he was more convinced of his method of doing philosophy, the method of analysis, than of his philosophical conclusions. Science, of course, was one of the principal components of analysis, along with logic and mathematics. While Russell was a believer in the scientific method, knowledge derived from empirical research that is verified through repeated testing, he believed that science reaches only tentative answers, and that scientific progress is piecemeal, and attempts to find organic unities were largely futile. Indeed, he believed the same was true of philosophy. Another founder of modern philosophy of science, Ernst Mach, placed less reliance on method, per se, for he believed that any method that produced predictable results was satisfactory and that the principal role of the scientist was to make successful predictions. While Russell would doubtless agree with this as a practical matter, he believed that the ultimate objective of both science and philosophy was to understand reality, not simply to make predictions.

The fact that Russell made science a central part of his method and of philosophy was instrumental in making the philosophy of science a full-blooded, separate branch of philosophy and an area in which subsequent philosophers specialised. Much of Russell's thinking about science is expressed in his 1914 book, Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. Among the several schools that were influenced by Russell were the logical positivists, particularly Rudolph Carnap, who maintained that the distinguishing feature of scientific propositions was their verifiability. This contrasted with the theory of Karl Popper, also greatly influenced by Russell, who believed that their importance rested in the fact that they were potentially falsifiable.

It is worth noting that outside of his strictly philosophical pursuits, Russell was always fascinated by science, particularly physics, and he even wrote several popular science books, The ABC of Atoms (1923) and The ABC of Relativity (1925).

"Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking"

by

William Hare

Mount St. Vincent University

ABSTRACT:

The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate.


The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized. Russell's name seldom appears in the immense literature on critical thinking which has emerged in philosophy of education over the past twenty years. Few commentators have noticed the importance of Russell's work in connection with any theory of education which includes a critical component. Chomsky, for example, reminds us of Russell's humanistic conception of education, which views the student as an independent person whose development is threatened by indoctrination. Woodhouse, also appealing to the concept of growth, points out Russell's concern to protect the child's freedom to exercise individual judgment on intellectual and moral questions. Stander discusses Russell's claim that schooling all too often encourages the herd mentality, with its fanaticism and bigotry, failing to develop what Russell calls a "critical habit of mind". (1) The threat of indoctrination, the importance of individual judgment, and the prevalence of fanatical opinions all point up the need for what nowadays is called critical thinking; and Russell's work is valuable to anyone who wants to understand what this kind of thinking entails and why it matters in education.

More needs to be said, however, to establish the significance of Russell's conception of critical thinking, which anticipates many of the insights in contemporary discussions and avoids many of the pitfalls which recent writers identify. Some factors, perhaps, obscure a ready appreciation of Russell's contribution. His comments on critical thinking are scattered throughout numerous writings, never systematized into a comprehensive account; (2) nor did Russell tend to use the now dominant terminology of "critical thinking". This phrase only began to come into fashion in the 1940s and 1950s, and earlier philosophers spoke more naturally of reflective thinking, straight thinking, clear thinking, or scientific thinking, often of thinking simpliciter. There are useful distinctions to be drawn among these, but it is often clear from the context that, despite terminological differences, the issue concerns what is now called critical thinking. Russell uses a wide variety of terms including, occasionally, references to a critical habit of mind, the critical attitude, critical judgment, solvent criticism, critical scrutiny, critical examination, and critical undogmatic receptiveness. The ideal of critical thinking is, for Russell, embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, rationality, liberalism and education, and his views emerge as he discusses these and other themes. (3)

Russell's conception of critical thinking involves reference to a wide range of skills, dispositions and attitudes which together characterize a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects, and which serves to prevent the emergence of numerous vices, including dogmatism and prejudice. Believing that one central purpose of education is to prepare students to be able to form "a reasonable judgment on controversial questions in regard to which they are likely to have to act", Russell maintains that in addition to having "access to impartial supplies of knowledge," education needs to offer "training in judicial habits of thought." (4) Beyond access to such knowledge, students need to develop certain skills if the knowledge acquired is not to produce individuals who passively accept the teacher's wisdom or the creed which is dominant in their own society. Sometimes, Russell simply uses the notion of intelligence, by contrast with information alone, to indicate the whole set of critical abilities he has in mind.

Such critical skills, grounded in knowledge, include: (i) the ability to form an opinion for oneself, (5) which involves, for example, being able to recognize what is intended to mislead, being capable of listening to eloquence without being carried away, and becoming adept at asking and determining if there is any reason to think that our beliefs are true; (ii) the ability to find an impartial solution, (6) which involves learning to recognize and control our own biases, coming to view our own beliefs with the same detachment with which we view the beliefs of others, judging issues on their merits, trying to ascertain the relevant facts, and the power of weighing arguments; (iii) the ability to identify and question assumptions, (7) which involves learning not to be credulous, applying what Russell calls constructive doubt in order to test unexamined beliefs, and resisting the notion that some authority, a great philosopher perhaps, has captured the whole truth. Russell reminds us that "our most unquestioned convictions may be as mistaken as those of Galileo's opponents." (8) In short, his account of critical skills covers a great deal of the ground set out in detailed, systematic fashion in more recent discussions. (9)

There are numerous insights in Russell's account which should have a familiar ring to those acquainted with the recent critical thinking literature. First, Russell's language, especially his emphasis on judgment, suggests the point that critical skills cannot be reduced to a mere formula to be routinely applied. Critical judgment means that one has to weigh evidence and arguments, approximate truth must be estimated, with the result that skill demands wisdom. Second, critical thinking requires being critical about our own attempts at criticism. Russell observes, for example, that refutations are rarely final; they are usually a prelude to further refinements. (10) He also notes, anticipating a recent objection that critical thinking texts restrict criticism to "approved" topics, that punishment awaits those who wander into unconventional fields of criticism. (11) For Russell, critical thinking must include critical reflection on what passes for critical thinking. Third, critical thinking is not essentially a negative enterprise, witness Russell's emphasis on constructive doubt, and his warning against practices which lead to children becoming destructively critical. (12) Russell maintains that the kind of criticism aimed at is not that which seeks to reject, but that which considers apparent knowledge on its merits, retaining whatever survives critical scrutiny.

There is a pervasive emphasis in Russell's writings, as in much recent commentary, on the reasons and evidence which support, or undermine, a particular belief. Critical scrutiny of these is needed to determine the degree of confidence we should place in our beliefs. He emphasizes the need to teach the skill of marshalling evidence if a critical habit of mind is to be fostered, and suggests that one of the most important, yet neglected, aspects of education is learning how to reach true conclusions on insufficient data. (13) This emphasis on reasons, however, does not lead Russell to presuppose the existence of an infallible faculty of rationality. Complete rationality, he observes, is an unattainable ideal; rationality is a matter of degree. (14) Far from having an uncritical belief in rationality, he was even prepared to say, somewhat facetiously, that philosophy was an unusually ingenious attempt to think fallaciously!

The mere possession of critical skills is insufficient to make one a critical thinker. Russell calls attention to various dispositions which mean that the relevant skills are actually exercised. Typically, he uses the notion of habit (sometimes the notion of practice) to suggest the translation of skills into actual behaviour. Russell describes education as the formation, by means of instruction, of certain mental habits [and a certain outlook on life and the world]. (15) He mentions, in particular: (i) the habit of impartial inquiry, (16) which is necessary if one-sided opinions are not to be taken at face value, and if people are to arrive at conclusions which do not depend solely on the time and place of their education; (ii) the habit of weighing evidence, (17) coupled with the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true; (iii) the habit of attempting to see things truly, (18) which contrasts with the practice of merely collecting whatever reinforces existing prejudice; and (iv) the habit of living from one's own centre, (19) which Russell describes as a kind of self-direction, a certain independence in the will. Such habits, of course, have to be exercised intelligently. Russell recognizes clearly, indeed it is a large part of the problem which critical thinking must address, that one becomes a victim of habit if the habitual beliefs of one's own age constitute a prison of prejudice. Hence the need for a critical habit of mind.

Because they are not simply automatic responses in which one has been drilled, such intellectual habits in effect reflect a person's willingness, what Russell typically calls one's readiness, to act and respond in various ways. His examples include: (i) a readiness to admit new evidence against previous beliefs, (20) which involves an open-minded acceptance (avoiding credulity) of whatever a critical examination has revealed; (ii) a readiness to discard hypotheses which have proved inadequate, (21) where the test is whether or not one is prepared in fact to abandon beliefs which once seemed promising; and (iii) a readiness to adapt oneself to the facts of the world, (22) which Russell distinguishes from merely going along with whatever happens to be in the ascendant, which might be evil. To be ready to act, or react, in these ways suggests both an awareness that the habits in question are appropriate and a principled commitment to their exercise. They have in common the virtue Russell called truthfulness, which entails the wish to find out, and trying to be right in matters of belief. (23)

In Russell's conception, beyond the skills and dispositions outlined above, a certain set of attitudes characterizes the outlook of a critical person. By the critical attitude, Russell means a temper of mind central to which is a certain stance with respect to knowledge and opinion which involves: (i) a realization of human fallibility, a sense of the uncertainty of many things commonly regarded as indubitable, bringing with it humility; (24) (ii) an open-minded outlook with respect to our beliefs, an "inward readiness" to give weight to the other side, where every question is regarded as open and where it is recognized that what passes for knowledge is sure to require correction; (25) (iii) a refusal to think that our own desires and wishes provide a key to understanding the world, recognizing that what we should like has no bearing whatever on what is; (26) (iv) being tentative, (27) without falling into a lazy scepticism (or dogmatic doubt), but holding one's beliefs with the degree of conviction warranted by the evidence. Russell defends an outlook midway between complete scepticism and complete dogmatism in which one has a strong desire to know combined with great caution in believing that one knows. Hence his notion of critical undogmatic receptiveness which rejects certainty (the demand for which Russell calls an intellectual vice (28) ) and ensures that open-mindedness does not become mindless.

Russell describes critical undogmatic receptiveness as the true attitude of science, and often speaks of the scientific outlook, the scientific spirit, the scientific temper, a scientific habit of mind and so on, but Russell does not believe that critical thinking is only, or invariably, displayed in science. It is clear that Russell is suggesting a certain ideal to which science can only aspire but which, in his view, science exemplifies to a greater extent than philosophy, at least philosophy as practised in the early twentieth century. Russell uses a number of other phrases to capture the ideal of critical thinking, including the philosophic spirit and a philosophical habit of mind, the liberal outlook (or even the liberal creed), and the rational temper. All of these ideas are closely intertwined. He remarks, for example, that the scientific outlook is the intellectual counterpart of what is, in the practical sphere, the outlook of liberalism. The critical outlook, for Russell, reflects an epistemological and ethical perspective which emphasizes: (i) how beliefs are held i.e. not dogmatically, (ii) the doubtfulness of all beliefs, (iii) the belief that knowledge is difficult but not impossible, (iv) freedom of opinion, (v) truthfulness, and (vi) tolerance.

Russell's account of critical thinking is itself a critical one. It is not rendered naive by postmodern doubts about enlightenment notions, doubts which Russell would regard as dogmatic. With respect to both skills and dispositions, for example, Russell does stress impartiality, but he is acutely aware of, and emphasizes, the problems which readily frustrate the realization of this ideal. No one can view the world with complete impartiality, Russell notes, but a continual approach is possible. He speaks of controlling our biases, but at the same time is quick to observe that "one's bias may be too profound to be conscious." (29) He concedes that even scientific articles (for example, about the effects of alcohol) will generally betray the writer's bias. He notes that it is very easy to become infected by prejudice and speaks of having to struggle against it. Russell admits that his account of the critical attitude may seem nothing more than a trite truism, but keeping it in mind, and adhering to it, especially as far as our own biases are concerned, is not at all easy. As with his conviction about the attainability of knowledge, and unlike many contemporary sceptics, Russell defends the ideal of impartiality and offers practical advice to anyone who takes this elusive ideal seriously. We can try to hear all sides and discuss our views with people who have different biases, making sure to face real opponents; we can stretch our minds by trying to appreciate alternative pictures of the world presented in philosophy, anthropology and history; we can learn to recognize our own biases by, for example, noting when contrary opinions make us angry. And so on.

Russell attaches considerable importance to forming one's own opinions, and this might seem to betray an unwarranted confidence in an individual's ability to avoid dependence on expert knowledge, an issue which recent discussions concerning trust in knowledge have brought to the fore. Russell's concern is that "with modern methods of education and propaganda it has become possible to indoctrinate a whole population with a philosophy which there is no rational ground to suppose true," (30) hence his emphasis on thinking for oneself. He is not, however, blind to the value of expert knowledge. He maintains that expert opinion, when unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. One of his famous principles is that "when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be regarded as certain." It cannot be regarded as certain, but it may prove to be correct since the experts, despite their agreement, may be mistaken. Hence we need to maintain our critical guard and an open-minded outlook. Russell observes that an economist should form an independent judgment on currency questions, but an ordinary mortal had better follow authority. There remains some scope, however, for one's own critical judgment even with respect to expert, or supposed expert, pronouncements. Learning not to be taken in by eloquence is part of learning to recognize who speaks with real authority. Russell also believes that non-specialists can learn to distinguish the genuine expert from cocksure prophets and dishonest charlatans, and in the case of doubt a critical person can and should suspend judgment.

It is sometimes objected against influential accounts of critical thinking that there is little or no mention of the feelings and relational skills which go beyond opening the mind to include opening one's heart to the world and to other people. This feminist critique does not, I believe, apply to Russell; indeed he anticipates this very criticism of critical thinking: "Schools . . . will turn out pupils whose minds are closed against reason and whose hearts have been taught to be deaf to humane feeling." (31) Elsewhere, speaking of an education designed to undermine dogmatism, Russell says plainly: "What is needed is not merely intellectual. A widening of sympathy is at least as important." (32) Again, far from the hostility and aggressiveness which is sometimes associated with critical thinking, and thought to make it gender biased, Russell advises that "in studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy. . . ." (33) Russell here anticipates what is called "the believing game" (by contrast with "the doubting game"), where one tries to discover, as Russell puts it, what it feels like to believe in the ideas in question before one attempts to overturn them.

Furthermore, Russell is not open to the objection, also raised against recent accounts of critical thinking, that the paradigm encourages one to lose touch with one's own personal voice, detaching and objectifying that voice in a misguided quest for Truth and Certainty. Russell himself disparages the tendency to use "truth" with a big T in the grand sense. People persecute each other because they believe they know the "Truth". (34) Although Russell thinks that there is a danger in passionate belief (in general he holds that the passionateness of a belief is inversely proportional to the evidence in its favour!), he does not advocate an attitude of complete detachment because he believes that detachment will lead to inaction. (35) The kind of detachment he favours is from those emotions (hatred, envy, anger and so on) which interfere with intellectual honesty and which prevent the emergence of kindly feeling. (36) The person who has no feelings, he says, does nothing and achieves nothing. Here again, Russell anticipates the recent objection that critical thinking may lead to people becoming spectators rather than participants. The philosopher is not a merely sceptical spectator of human activities. (37) We need, Russell says, to learn to live without certainty, yet without being paralyzed by hesitation. He advocates living from one's own centre, but warns against subjective certainty. Many have gone to war with the certainty that they would survive, Russell observes, but death paid no heed to their certainty.

Finally, it is worth noting that Russell avoids the "philosopher's fallacy" of exaggerating the role of philosophy and logic in the development of critical thinking to the neglect of subject knowledge. Certainly Russell thinks that philosophy has much to contribute, especially to learning the value of suspended judgment — no doubt because philosophy is so full of controversy and uncertainty. Moreover, Russell is not nearly as dismissive of informal logic as some recent critics; clear logical thinking has a definite part to play. (38) It is useful, Russell thinks, to study informal fallacies and to have good names for them, such as the "pigs-might-fly" fallacy. (39) In giving an example of this fallacy from physics, Russell seems to agree with those who hold that such principles of reasoning are subject-neutral and generalizable. Having said this, however, it is important to recall that Russell does not equate critical thinking with logical proficiency. Logic and mathematics are the alphabet of the book of nature, not the book itself. Russell also makes it clear in many places that it is one thing to know, for example, the principle that belief should be proportioned to the evidence, and quite another to know what the actual evidence is. Russell, as we have seen, stresses access to impartial sources of knowledge; without such access, our critical abilities cannot function. He is not, therefore, to be convicted of a simplistic view about the generalizability of critical thinking. (40)

Notes:

(1) Noam Chomsky, "Toward a humanistic conception of education", in Walter Feinberg and Henry Rosemont, Jr. (eds.), Work, Technology and Education Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975: 204-20; Howard Woodhouse, "The concept of growth in Bertrand Russell's educational thought", Journal of Educational Thought 17, 1, 1983: 12-22; Philip Stander, "Bertrand Russell on the aims of education", Educational Forum 38, 4, 1974: 445-56.

(2) Relevant papers include: "The place of science in a liberal education" (1913), "Free thought and official propaganda" (1922), "The value of free thought" (1944), "Education for democracy" (1939), "The functions of a teacher (1940), "How to become a philosopher" (1942), "Philosophy for laymen" (1946), and "Freedom and the philosopher" (1951). Relevant books include: The Problems of Philosophy (1912), Principles of Social Reconstruction (1916), On Education (1926), Sceptical Essays (1928), Education and the Social Order (1932), Unpopular Essays (1950), and Why I Am Not A Christian (1957).

(3) Russell remarks that philosophy is merely the attempt to answer ultimate questions critically. See Russell, The Problems of Philosophy London: Oxford University Press, 1973: 1. And he observes that critical undogmatic receptiveness is the true attitude of science. See "Free thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays London: Unwin, 1985: 117.

(4) Russell, "John Stuart Mill", in Portraits From Memory London: Allen and Unwin, 1956: 131.

(5) Russell, "Education for democracy", Addresses and Proceedings of the National Education Association 77, July 2-6, 1939: 530. See also "Philosophy for laymen", in Unpopular Essays London: George Allen and Unwin, 1950: 47.

(6) Russell, "A plea for clear thinking", in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 174. See also "Free thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116.

(7) Russell, Philosophy New York: W. W. Norton, 1927: 299. See also Principles of Social Reconstruction London: Unwin, 1971: 108.

(8) Russell, "Philosophy", in John G. Slater (ed.), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell Vol. 11, London: Routledge, 1997: 223. (Incomplete paper, probably written in 1945. Emphasis in original.)

(9) See, for example, Robert H. Ennis, "A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities", in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice New York: W. H. Freeman, 1987: 9-26.

(10) Russell, History of Western Philosophy London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961: 69. Another clear example is Russell's remark that "the liberal philosopher will wish all beliefs to be open to discussion, including the belief that all beliefs should be open to discussion." See "Freedom and the philosopher", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 418-21.

(11) Russell, "Freedom and the colleges", in Why I Am Not A Christian New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965: 181.

(12) Russell, Principles of Social Reconstruction London: Unwin, 1971: 107-8.

(13) Russell, Education and the Social Order London: Unwin, 1977:141.

(14) Russell, "Can men be rational?", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 41.

(15) Russell, "The place of science in a liberal education", in Mysticism and Logic Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1953: 41. I shall take up the idea of "a certain outlook" subsequently.

(16) Russell, "The functions of a teacher", in Unpopular Essays op. cit.: 151.

(17) Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 126.

(18) Russell, "Human character and social institutions", in Richard A. Rempel et al. (eds.), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell Vol. 14, London: Routledge, 1995: 419-25.

(19) Russell, "Human character and social institutions", ibid.: 421.

(20) Russell, "Freedom versus authority in education", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 149.

(21) Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116

(22) Russell, "Hopes: realized and disappointed", in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 47.

(23) Russell, "The value of free thought", in Understanding History New York: Philosophical Library, 1957: 73.

(24) Russell, "A philosophy for our time", in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 167. For the comment on humility, see Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World New York: Mentor, 1960: 186. Russell also notes the theory-laden character of observation. See his comment in Philosophy op. cit.: 170.

(25) Russell, On Education London: Unwin, 1960: 43, 134. And Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116.

(26) Russell, "The place of science in a liberal education", in Mysticism and Logic op. cit.: 46. And "What I believe", in Why I Am Not A Christian op. cit.: 54.

(27) Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116.

(28) Russell, "Philosophy for laymen", in Unpopular Essays op. cit.: 42.

(29) Russell, "My own philosophy", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 69.

(30) Russell, "Philosophy", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 233. (An incomplete paper circa 1945, perhaps building on the similarly titled paper cited in fn. 8 above.)

(31) Russell, "The duty of a philosopher in this age", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 462.

(32) Russell, "The spirit of inquiry', in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 435. (Previously unpublished answers to a questionnaire, written in 1953.)

(33) Russell, History of Western Philosophy op. cit.: 58. This point is acknowledged by Blythe McVicker Clinchy, "On critical thinking and connected knowing", in Kerry S. Walters (ed.), Re-Thinking Reason New York: SUNY, 1994: 33-42.

(34) Russell, Philosophy op. cit.: 254. And "Philosophy in the twentieth century', in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 49.

(35) Russell, "The spirit of inquiry", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit: 433.

(36) Russell, "Rewards of philosophy", in Collected Papers Vol.11, op. cit.: 276.

(37) Russell, "Le philosophe en temps de crise", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 415.

(38) Russell, "A plea for clear thinking", in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 175.

(39) Russell, review of Rupert Crawshay-Williams, The Comforts of Unreason, in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 323-7.

(40) See my "Content and criticism: the aims of schooling", Journal of Philosophy of Education 29, 1, 1995: 47-60.


Berkeley, California
11 June 1994


ICARUS or The Future of Science


Knowing one's "tyche"

Nuclear weaponry

Bertrand Russell was born on the 18th of this month and the date is shared with resident poet Tim Ray.

Happy Birthday Tim.

Knowing one's "tyche"

"Religion and Science are two aspects of social life, of which the former has been important as far back as we know anything of man’s mental history, while the latter, after a fitful flickering existence among the Greeks and Arabs, suddenly sprang into importance in the sixteenth century, and has ever since increasingly moulded both the ideas and institutions among which we live."--Bertrand Russell

Longevity i.e., religion [not theology or brother metaphysics] does not necessitate a total sound knowledge platform but maybe only a part--the part we cannot empirically validate. This appears what many scientists will not admit or believe...that a total knowledge of the universe may be impossible via empiricism such as the inexplicable realm of the quantum. Fess up and consider the physical limitations of human comprehension, inadequate instruments to quantify the universe, and most sobering, that the species will cease to exist before even getting close to finding answers.

Nuclear weaponry

"Russell-Einstein Manifesto"

A Plea for Nuclear Arms Control

July 9, 1955

Perry W. Bridgman
Max Born
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa

"Here, then, is the problem," the Manifesto stated, "which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war."

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto makes the following points:

1.) Scientists have special responsibilities to awaken the public to the technological threats, particularly nuclear threats, confronting humanity.

2.) Those scientists with the greatest knowledge of the situation appear to be the most concerned.

3.) Nuclear weapons endanger our largest cities and threaten the future of humanity.

4.) In the circumstance of prevailing nuclear threat, humankind must put aside its differences and confront this overriding problem.

5.) The prohibition of modern weapons is not a sufficient solution to the threat; war as an institution must be abolished.

6.) Nonetheless, as a first step the nuclear weapons states should renounce these weapons.

7.) The choice before humanity is to find peaceful means of settling conflicts or to face "universal death."

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

"The Russell-Einstein Manifesto"

I was doing some research on ancient metallurgy, especially in India, and discovered an interesting statement: "...none of the Rajput cannons were ever used to confront the British who succeeded in conquering the sub-continent without ever having to fight against the country's best equipped armies, thus demonstrating that technological progress is not an end in itself." [Rajput were Hindus of the warrior caste dating back to the 7th century. "Rajput" is a Sanskrit word meaning "son of a king (rajputra)" and the dominant people of Rajputana--Rajasthan. The emphasis is on the phrase "...demonstrating that technological progress is not an end in itself." Development of nuclear weapons and storing a pile of the weapons to detour hostile nations may be futile for a nation may be brought to its knees by lesser skillful or sophisticated technologies.

The old bromide "might makes right" is becoming antiquated and doesn't fit well into a mature species that mankind will eventually reach. Having the biggest stick [nuclear weapons] doesn't appear to persuade or subjugate terrorists. Maybe North Korea, but that may well be unfound hysteria on the communist regime. "First strike" capability is real and awesome. But, that had better be based on better intelligence than currently demonstrated; a truly thinking administration that suppresses personal agendas.

"The B61 is a tactical thermonuclear gravity bomb which can be carried aboard a variety of strategic and tactical aircraft (including the B-52 and B-2A bombers and the F-16 fighter). First deployed in 1968, an estimated 3,000 weapons in nine different versions (designed by Los Alamos National Laboratory) were ultimately built, with yields ranging from 0.3-300 kilotons. Seven of these versions remain operational, including the B61-11, deployed in 1997."

I suppose one has to draw the line somewhere...when do nuclear weapons verge on the ridiculous--such as the B61?

"It is scientifically and technically possible to build an earth penetrating device that could bury a B617 warhead 30 meters into concrete, or 150 meters into earth, before detonating it. The device (based on knowledge and technology that are available since 50 years) would however be large and cumbersome. Better penetrating materials, components able to withstand larger stresses, higher impact velocities, and/or high explosive driven penetration aids, can only marginally improve the device. It is concluded that the robust nuclear earth penetrating (RNEP) program may be as much motivated by the development of new technology directly applicable to next generation nuclear weapons, and by the political necessity to periodically reassess the role and utility of nuclear weapons, than by the perceived military need for a weapon able to destroy deeply buried targets. Funding for a nuclear “bunker buster” warhead has been dropped from the U.S. Energy Department’s 2006 budget, according to information released on October 26, 2005. However, like other major political issues, the project of earth penetrating warheads is a recurring subject, which has to be assessed in the context of an evolving technological and strategic environment, that is becoming particularly complex because of the advent of fourth generation nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapon States."

"B61"

"The B61 (Mk-61) Bomb"

Secrets of society? Who knows and even scarier, a thermonuclear weapon that has fallen from the limelight. Anyone remember the "cobalt bomb". This was proposed by Leo Szilard and was supposed to be the ultimate "doomsday" weapon virtually destroying everything on Earth. Not very practical from a "winner take all" strategy, but it did theoretically establish some fear. Below is a link to a good explanation of regular thermonuclear weapons including the "Co-60" bomb.

"The Never-Tested Doomsday Bomb"

The "neutron bomb":

"In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days."

It appears that the basic targets are ground troops and armored vehicles that would normally be resistant to a conventional thermonuclear weapon generating heat and initial blast. But this weapon can produce huge quantities of neutrons which are absorbed by the armored vehicles. Understand that the M-1 tank is partially constructed of depleted uranium and with a heavy bombardment of neutrons fission would ensure that the vehicle would become radioactive. Still a nasty weapon and certainly confined to conventional warfare which may become nonexistent.

"Neutron bomb"

Hans Bethe felt "the most intense relief" that atomic weapons he helped develop had not been used since WWII – but horror that thousands more had been built.

"Hans in War and Peace"

You know...we talk about the terrible power of nuclear weapons, but none of us has ever experienced such a weapon...only by proxy. If we felt the heat, the wind, the blinding flash, the storm of debris, the radiation, we may try a bit harder to resolve this issue.

One may discuss many issues here and on different levels. Is the bulk of weaponry "defensive" or "offensive" and just to what degree of sophistication and lethality is needed to protect, destroy, persuade? Having thousands of nuclear weapons is absurd. Historically, the awesomeness of a nation's strength was measured by military might and the technologies at the military's disposal. The Hittites had the advantage of iron; the French armies were devastated by the English longbow; the Japanese brought to defeat by nuclear weapons. "Might" doesn't always make "right". There are no nations today save North Korea [and their threats are mere sabre rattling; pleas for global acceptance; ranting of an insane dictator] that pose a serious threat. The current threats are the idiotic terrorists that have lost all sense of rationality and think they can change powers by violence. They are a disgrace to their faith, ethnicity, and value of life. Their tactics of raw violence will dissolve into global jadedness and the acts will become superfluous. Surely, the citizens of this world can do a whole lot better than indulge in pettiness and the realization of a dominate regime that relishes subjugation and manipulation. That is corrupt power and cupidity at its worst. Nuclear parody is long gone. But understand this, great sums of revenue are generated during war time--commerce in a nasty way.

Here are two famous letters composed with the assistance of Leo Szilard, submitted to President Franklin D. Roosevelt regarding the production, proliferation, and use of atomic weapons.

Albert Einstein's letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 2, 1939

Albert Einstein
Old Grove Road
Nassau Point
Peconic, Long Island

August 2, 1939
F. D. Roosevelt,
President of the United States,
White House
Washington, D. C.

Sir:

Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in a manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of this situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium,by which vast amount s of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomena would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, m ight very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

Page 2

The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.
In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:

a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium or for the United States;

b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University Laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contrib utions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial aboratories which have the necessary equipment.

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should have taken such an early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsacker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Yours very truly,
Signature
(Albert Einstein)


Albert Einstein's second letter [actually the fourth] to Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 25, 1945.

Albert Einstein
112 Mercer Street
Princeton, New Jersey
March 25, 1945
The Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt
The President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

I am writing you to introduce Dr. L. Szilard who proposes to submit to you certain considerations and recommendations. Unusual circumstances which I shall describe further below induce me to take this action in spite of the fact that I do not know the substance of the considerations and recommendations which Dr. Szilard proposes to submit to you.

In the summer of 1939 Dr. Szilard put before me his views concerning the potential importance of uranium for national defense. He was greatly disturbed by the potentialities involved and anxious that the United States Government be advised of them as soon as possible. Dr. Szilard, who is one of the discovers of the neutron emission of uranium on which all present work on uranium is based, described to me a specific system which he devised and which he thought would make it possible to set up a chain reaction in unseparated uranium in the immediate future. Having known him for over twenty years both for his scientific work and personally, I have much confidence in his judgment and it was on the basis of his judgment as well as my own that I took the liberty to approach you in connection with this subject. You responded to my letter dated August 2, 1939 by the appointment of a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Briggs and thus started the Government's activity in this field.

The terms of secrecy under which Dr. Szilard is working at present do not permit him to give me information about his work; however, I understand that he now is greatly concerned about the lack of adequate contact between scientists who are doing this work and those members of your Cabinet who are responsible for formulating policy. In the circumstances I consider it my duty to give Dr. Szilard this introduction and I wish to express the hope that you will be able to give his presentation of the case your personal attention.

Yours very truly,
Signature
(Albert Einstein)


Further reading...

"A Critical Look at the Bush Administration Energy Department’s Nuclear Weapons Complex and the First Decade of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship"

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century"

"More Than 470 Physicists Sign Petition To Oppose U.S. Policy On Nuclear Attack"

"Nuclear Options"

"Our Hidden WMD Program/Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons"


Additional materials...

See this other "Philosophy of Science Portal" blog topic:

Andrei Sakharov vs Edward Teller


An audio presentation from NPR:

"Scientists Work on New Nuclear Weapons"


Free online book:

The Nuclear Seduction: Why the Arms Race Doesn't Matter—and What Does