The Story
Raft Debate
Held at the Commonwealth Auditorium on Wednesday September 30, the 2009 William and Mary Raft Debate proved to be a tremendously successful continuation of this modern tradition.
The premise of this sardonically titillating discussion details the desperate situation of three intellectuals shipwrecked on a desert island â€" a humanist, a scientist, and a social scientist. In order to win the rescue raft and survive, they must each argue the value of their specific academic discipline to the future of humanity. They are joined by a devil’s advocate, who argues that none of the disciplines represented are worth saving. An omniscient judge and an involved audience join the fictional crew to serve as adjudicator of the professors’ fate.
“Let’s imagine four professors stranded on a desert island with only one life raft for escape," said Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, Arts & Sciences Judge Laurie Sanderson.
These ivory tower intellectuals sit on the beach, gaze out at all the fish in the sea [the audience] and argue about which of them should survive for the sake of humanity.
“What’s the point of all this?," said Sanderson. "Certainly, one point is to have fun with an intriguing question and then go eat cake. Or maybe we’re showing that each one of these disciplines does have importance in society.”
These intellectuals, all professors at William and Mary, include physicist David Armstrong. Dr. Armstrong teaches introductory physics, as well as graduate quantum mechanics. He also conducts research in experimental nuclear and particle physics at labs in Newport News and Canada. Armstrong began the debate with a plea to the audience’s inferred love of Gilligan’s Island.
“It struck me that seven castaways on a deserted isle was the perfect microcosm for the academic world,” said Armstrong
He argued that the character Skipper, as the opinionated leader, represents the government department. Mary Ann, being bubbly and helpful, is the education department. The sensual love-interest, Ginger, represents the performing arts, and Gilligan, the nosy character, is sociology.
“But who kept them along, and saved their bacon in constant episodes?," said Mary Ann. "Yes, the professor, the scientist. The nerdy, natural scientist.”
Therefore, Armstrong says, science is the most valuable discipline to society. Without science, he argues, humanity would be chaotic and doomed. He supports this perspective by discussing what he considers the sub-par alternatives.
“Consider classics," said Armstrong. "I love classics. Classic cars, classic rock…President Reveley. Economics is known as the dismal science. Dismal, yes. Science, no. Science confronts the reality of nature of the universe around us. Reality, not swayed by rhetoric or force of emotionality. We are all quite literally stardust. What could be more human? What could be more poetic?”
The second debater, Professor David Feldman, teaches courses on international economy in the Department of Economics, the Public Policy program, and the International Relations program. He is currently researching political-economy and efficiency of development aid, as well as economic integration.
“So, I’m an economist," said Feldman, "and I’m taxed with defending the social sciences during one of our largest economic meltdowns."
He continued by commenting on following the excellent argument presented by Armstrong before presenting his perspective. Using the source, Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, Feldman makes it clear how important it is to understand how economic incentives shape behaviors and pervade society.
“We have to face the social world, which is very messy," said Feldman. "For some, the social sciences offer a window onto the world."
The humanist, Associate Professor Giulia Pacini, specializes in eighteenth-century French literary and cultural history. She teaches language classes and advanced courses on topics such as the French Revolution and early modern theater. With a healthy dose of humor, Pacini outlines her argument, stating that the humanities are necessary to exchange ideas and give purpose to the discoveries of science.
“I’m here to represent all things human in this debate against the Daves,” said Pacini.
At this point in the debate, Pacini accesses the power of persuasive props, handing Feldman a fishing pole with a boot attached to the end of it.
“Here’s a fishing pole for those fishing for arguments, but it seems to get the boot,” said Pacini.
As for the natural sciences, this humanist claims that, while its participants did manage to land a man on the moon, they often make mistakes because they seem to forget that other cultures use different forms of measurement.
“We are the ones who actually know how to ask for help," said Pacini. "We can actually write that message in the bottle and can write it so that it can be understood by all cultures, We can get input from other people because we can actually speak their languages.”
Not only does she advocate for the importance of cooperation and communication, Pacini also utilizes the emotive argument, justifying arts by their ability to bring joy, hope, and meaning to life.
“Can you imagine a world without spirituals, without gospel music, without Pablo Picasso’s Guernica?,” said Pacini.
Pacini continues by stating that those who survive and return to humanity must understand how to bring meaning to the world. The humanities ask the important questions about death, existence, and purpose.
“This raft reminds us that we’re all going to die at some point…some sooner than others,” said Pacini in reference to her debating colleagues.
Now enter the devil’s advocate. Pessimistic yet sarcastically reasonable, Assistant Professor Jeremy Stoddard plays his role well. Dr. Stoddard directs the secondary social studies education program and teaches secondary social studies methods at William and Mary.
“My task tonight is easy," said Stoddard. "I’m supposed to argue that none of these people should go on this raft. And frankly a physicist, an economist, and someone who knows about French culture…it’s like the beginning of a bad joke, really.”
With that statement, Stoddard slips smoothly into his role and humorously tears into the debate participants.
“When is the last time the economist has made an accurate prediction?," said Stoddard in reference to Feldman. How can the recession be over with 10 percent unemployment? If this is the influence, leave them off the raft.”
“You’ve got to throw her a bone," said Pacini. "She makes a good point. But let’s imagine: what would science be like without medicine or the study of behavior?”
He concludes by handing out signs to each member of the panel. This including a false graph of productivity compared to STD’s for Pacini, highlighting the necessity of scientific understanding. Stoddard then sums up his general position before taking a seat for the next period of rebuttals.
“I want you to take a second and think," said Stoddard, "if we’re talking about the future of humanity, which discipline would you like to survive? Or is it just so scary that we should leave the raft empty and just push it to another island where there might be someone who appreciates the value of interdisciplinary work?”
During the rebuttals, Armstrong makes several points in response to Pacini, Feldman, and Stoddard, stating that even scientists have emotion. He also claims that the wars that have plagued the world can all be blamed on the humanities, while science only serves to advance society.
“If you want to survive," said Armstrong, "if you want humanity to survive, you must understand how the world works. You need the scientist."
Feldman follows, arguing that there are many things more dismal than economy, even in the current state of recession. Pacini then begins, claiming that the humanities are the foundation of both the social and natural sciences and, thus, the most valuable discipline.
“What is missing in our world today is a commitment to health insurance for all," said Pacini, "generic drugs for all, access to preventative medicine. It’s a question of what republics should really be about. These questions are at the heart of the humanities. Of course the chemists will do their work too, but the humanities will be what drives this and makes this happen".
Pacini then directs her attention to the comment made by Armstrong regarding war in reference to the humanities.
“It seems to me that the problem here is one of ignorance and an inability to speak to and hear from other cultures. That’s what drives the clash of civilization. The humanities actually work against this.”
Stoddard, as the devil’s advocate, gets the last word before audience questions. He takes this rebuttal time to draw a diagram for an escape solution. This visual aid shows the scientist inventing a way to power the raft and fit all of the professors on board. Stoddard then argues the necessity of the economist in determining the probability of the group’s survival and the humanist’s role as storyteller on the long journey home.
“Now, that’s a nice little story, but it’s a fairytale,” said Stoddard.
While this concludes the debate, it also opens the floor for audience questions. Several people presented solutions similar to that of the devil’s advocate while others asked specific questions about what each debater had said.
“What would each of your personal contributions be toward humanity if you returned?” asked one audience member.
In response, each professor made a different point.
“Hopefully a modest increase and understanding of the world around us,” said Armstrong,
“A modest understanding of what all disciplines bring to the table,” said Feldman.
“Languages, of course, the ability to talk to others and share with them," said Pacini.
“I’ve got the devil on my side -I’ve got my own transportation," said Stoddard.
After much deliberation and the tremendously thunderous cheers of the audience for their choice to win, a verdict was reached.
“The judges have come to a decision - the natural sciences win the raft!”