December 5, 2007
The Individual or the Group?
A question that arises in Science, Law and Language
Freeman Dyson
Physicist, Institute For Advanced Study
Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the 66th Year
The meeting was called to order by President Joe Giordmaine at 10:15 AM. George Hansen lead the Invocation. Minutes of the previous meeting were read by Jim Johnson. After visitors and guests were introduced, Scott McVay then introduced Professor Freeman Dyson, Professor of Physics at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey.
Professor Dyson’s presentation, stunning and sophisticated, was titled, “The Individual or the Group? A Question that Arises in Science, Law and Language.”
Professor Dyson began by indicating that this question of which is more important is one of the fundamental questions to be dealt with in civilized society. He went on to describe the three “hits” that had caused him to contemplate the idea, from an anthropologist, a lawyer, and a scientist.
Hit number one from the anthropologist Caroline Humphrey involved language: Our western concept of freedom as belonging to the individual rather than to the group is not widely shared or perhaps even understood as such by other cultures and peoples. Even in “our West” it is a Renaissance concept certainly unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and latterly perhaps not well understood by the Russian peoples, whose language with three words for freedom still does not precisely define ours. Other cultures and peoples are equally group-centered, thus our individualistic concept of freedom seems natural only to a minority of people, and as such, it behooves us to understand other modes of thinking.
Hit number two involved Law: The lawyer Lawrence Latto indicated that our Supreme Court has most recently erred on the side of the individual, notably with the Bakke case which gave judges the opportunity to begin to undermine civil rights legislation of the 1960’s. Bakke’s victory, narrowly won, meant that the individual became pre-eminent in terms of equal protection under the law, and has reinforced the tendency of Americans to think of America as a society of individuals rather than of communities. Nevertheless, as Professor Dyson pointed out, minority groups think of themselves as groups rather than as individuals.
Hit number three involved a disagreement by our presenter and the biologist Richard Dawkins, who has maintained that natural selection acts only on individuals or on individual genes: Darwin, as Professor Dyson pointed out, thought of selection as acting on races rather than on individuals.
Professor Dyson concluded by indicating that he saw freedom and human rights growing within tight-knit communities and belonging to them. Precious as individual rights are, they are seen by him as a recent and to use his words, “precarious” addition. Compromise is the golden mean and the best road to find the balance between the individual and the group. It is to be hoped that anthropologists, lawyers and scientists can all contribute to such a compromise.
At the end of a lively and thoughtful question period, one questioner asked whether absolute freedom of knowledge might not lead to evil as well as to good. Professor Dyson had the last word: As a scientist who favored absolute freedom of knowledge, he said, he thought it good to “blow it up and see what happens!”
Respectfully submitted,
Claire Jacobus
Click Here for Full Text of the Lecture.
Professor Dyson’s presentation, stunning and sophisticated, was titled, “The Individual or the Group? A Question that Arises in Science, Law and Language.”
Professor Dyson began by indicating that this question of which is more important is one of the fundamental questions to be dealt with in civilized society. He went on to describe the three “hits” that had caused him to contemplate the idea, from an anthropologist, a lawyer, and a scientist.
Hit number one from the anthropologist Caroline Humphrey involved language: Our western concept of freedom as belonging to the individual rather than to the group is not widely shared or perhaps even understood as such by other cultures and peoples. Even in “our West” it is a Renaissance concept certainly unknown to the Greeks and Romans, and latterly perhaps not well understood by the Russian peoples, whose language with three words for freedom still does not precisely define ours. Other cultures and peoples are equally group-centered, thus our individualistic concept of freedom seems natural only to a minority of people, and as such, it behooves us to understand other modes of thinking.
Hit number two involved Law: The lawyer Lawrence Latto indicated that our Supreme Court has most recently erred on the side of the individual, notably with the Bakke case which gave judges the opportunity to begin to undermine civil rights legislation of the 1960’s. Bakke’s victory, narrowly won, meant that the individual became pre-eminent in terms of equal protection under the law, and has reinforced the tendency of Americans to think of America as a society of individuals rather than of communities. Nevertheless, as Professor Dyson pointed out, minority groups think of themselves as groups rather than as individuals.
Hit number three involved a disagreement by our presenter and the biologist Richard Dawkins, who has maintained that natural selection acts only on individuals or on individual genes: Darwin, as Professor Dyson pointed out, thought of selection as acting on races rather than on individuals.
Professor Dyson concluded by indicating that he saw freedom and human rights growing within tight-knit communities and belonging to them. Precious as individual rights are, they are seen by him as a recent and to use his words, “precarious” addition. Compromise is the golden mean and the best road to find the balance between the individual and the group. It is to be hoped that anthropologists, lawyers and scientists can all contribute to such a compromise.
At the end of a lively and thoughtful question period, one questioner asked whether absolute freedom of knowledge might not lead to evil as well as to good. Professor Dyson had the last word: As a scientist who favored absolute freedom of knowledge, he said, he thought it good to “blow it up and see what happens!”
Respectfully submitted,
Claire Jacobus
Click Here for Full Text of the Lecture.