Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[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?

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

[Sushan]

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.

[LuckyR]

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.

[Pattern-chaser]

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:

Compare apples and oranges - To try to highlight the similarities between two different things — which typically cannot be done.

Full dictionary entry here.

[GE Morton]

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.

[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?

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.

[LuckyR]

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.

[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?

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:

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.

[Sushan]

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.

[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.



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.

[GE Morton]

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.

[LuckyR]

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.

[Pattern-chaser]

You ask if a scientist or a diplomat is "more useful" [...] you are, in the words of the old proverb, comparing apples and oranges.

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.

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?

[GE Morton]

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