two characters

Our university tried bridging the humanities and the science for just one day with a program they called "Imagining, Performing, Writing Science." Rather than be dismissive, it didn't seem to be to much of a burden to attend. When I looked more carefully at the schedule, I saw that the post-lunch presentation was by the guys who host RadioLab on WNYC. Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich in person ... at UConn. One fascinating aspect was that in person, they engage in the same overlapping talk when live as they do on their radio show. And it was an investment of just 90 minutes of a Friday afternoon.

After they played their first audio clip from their show, I realized that they hadn't generated anything necessarily new for our cow college. Given the spontaneous laughter from the audience and the horrid intro by a physics professor (who confessed he'd only learned about RadioLab two weeks prior) I can't fault them for their decision. While I did record their presentation, you can hear a very high quality version by listening to their Sept 9, 2008 show called "Making the Hippo Dance." Some slightly different quips but the bulk of the presentation is the same. Not bad, but less than I had hoped for. At least for the content.

What intrigued me was that there were two roles being played and they were not accidental. On different programs they swap these roles. The roles are "science enthusiast" and "skeptical realist." The dialogue creates a fascinating space into which the listener can insert himself. So one guy will say something like, "Even though there's no biological basis to race, forensic scientists can determine gender and race from a tissue sample" and then the other guy will say, "Wait wait WAIT! That can't be possible. How can this be?" And then the other guy will slowly reel in his faux resistance friend. The effect is that I get pulled in, too. Great storytelling and I'll bet there's even a name for this rhetorical device -- but all I know about rhetoric is what I just read at the site A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices (maybe I'll attempt a "dirimens copulatio" without being slapped?). But I digress ...

With a major conference address on the horizon, less than 3 weeks hence, I have wondered about how the co-presenters might represent subtly different stances toward grand challenges and great opportunities. Imagine two speakers. One represents the senior, frustrated and demanding person who tries to incite the crowd; the other speaker a younger, joyous, and encouraging fellow who tries to offer insights. The former could insist that the solution is to tear down the temple while the other might point to rays of hope that might affect changes from within. The former could rant about shelves of volumes and issues of publications that have had little affect; the latter could suggest that there are voluminous issues that demand our attention. One could propose a revolution against the traditional conference; his foil could point to gentler efforts of resistance that are less destructive? Missed opportunities and wasted efforts ... or greater clarity about what we should do and fresh commitments to doing these kinds of works.