Einstein and Kant

[tommyedison 0]

From this website (Link)

Albert Einstein claimed that Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason had a greater influence on him than any other work of philosophy, and that it helped him to develop his relativity theory.

How can such a bad philosophical influence have produced such an integrated theory?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

From this website (Link)

Albert Einstein claimed that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason had a greater influence on him than any other work of philosophy, and that it helped him to develop his relativity theory.

How can such a bad philosophical influence have produced such an integrated theory?

That's a very good question, one which I addressed sometime ago in a post to HBL. I thought I had replicated it here on THE FORUM, but I could not locate it by using "Search," so I include it below my remarks here in this post. (I have X'ed out comments that were not mine.) The bottom line is, taking Einstein's own advice, it you want to understand the methods used by theoretical physicists, don't listen to their words but rather pay attention to what they actually did. Einstein used a proper inductive approach in the development of relativity.

Anyway, you can read about that below if you are interested. But, despite their claim to articles written by "over 1200 specialists from universities around the world," that quote you provided from The Literary Encyclopedia is absolutely wrong. I could go on and on about why, but here, briefly, are a few reasons.

First, Einstein himself clearly stated many times that it was Kant but rather Hume, along with Mach, who were his greatest philosophic influences. For instance:

In this also you saw correctly that this line of thought had a great influence on my efforts, and more specifically, E. mach, and even

more so Hume, whose 'Treatise of Human Nature' I studied avidly... (letter to Moritz Schlick dated 14 december 1915, in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, The Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914-1918, Document 165, Princeton University Press, 1998

Second, though Einstein was familiar with some of Kant's work at the time of developing relativity, it was not until later in his life that that work acquired significance.

I did not grow up in the Kantian tradition, but came to understand the truly valuable which is to be found in his doctrine, alongside of errors which today are quite obvious, only quite late. (Albert Einstein, "Reply to Criticisms," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Harper Torchbooks, p 680, 1949/1951.)

Third, Einstein explicitly credits Hume and Mach in the most crucial identification of the role of time in developing relativity.

One sees that in this paradox [the pursuing of a beam of light paradox] the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained. Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of simultaneity, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious. Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution of the problem. The type of critical reasoning which was required for the discovery of this central point was decisively furthered, in my case, especially by the reading of David Hume's and Ernst Mach's philosophical writings. (Albert Einstein, "Reply to Criticisms," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Harper Torchbooks, p 679, 1949/1951.)

Fourth, even later in life when Einstein embraced Kant in a way he never did when he was younger, he still rejected the Kantian fundamental of synthetic a priori.

He [Kant], however, was misled by the erroneous opinion -- difficult to avoid in his time -- that Euclidean geometry is necessary to thinking and offers assured (i.e., not dependent upon sensory experience) knowledge concerning objects of 'external' perception. From this easily understandable error he concluded the existence of synthetic judgments a priori, which are produced by reason alone, and which, consequently, can lay claim to absolute validity. I think your censure is directed less against Kant himself than against those who today still adhere to the errors of 'synthetic judgments a priori.' (Albert Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, Harper Torchbooks, p. 53, 1949/1951.)

Those are just a few of the reasons offered in refuation of the claim made in that article you quoted from. I think it is fair to say that looking at the later part of his life, Einstein was, philosophically, a neo-Kantian of sorts, along with a mixture of much else (a good part of which was also quite reasonable and very much reality-based). Einstein was a genius with quite a mixed bag of philosophical ideas, but the explicit philosophy that he avowed (which changed quite a bit over the course of his life) was not necessarily the philosophy he actually used epistemologically and practically in his work.

**********************************************************

Here is the post I mentioned.

[...]

As to Einstein's "avowed epistemology": Einstein was an extremely

prolific writer--the Einstein Papers Project at Caltech will

eventually publish 25 volumes of his writings, 8 of which are

currently in print--and his philosophical utterances varied

greatly over the course of his life. Unlike Miss Rand, who

expanded and integrated her philosophical knowledge in a pretty

much straight- line fashion, Einstein zigzagged all over the

place. It is not at all difficult to cull quotations as evidence

for Einstein being, simultaneously, of many different

philosophical persuasions. If one wants to understand the essence

of Ayn Rand--her philosophical thinking and her sense of life

--one can jump right in at almost any stage of her adult life and

glimpse a consistent snapshot of exactly who and what she was.

Not so with Einstein in regard to philosophy.

The philosophical writings of young Einstein are quite different

from those of his mid-life and later years. For instance,

Einstein was much less allied to Kant in his earlier years ("Kant

seems quite weak to me."[1]), when Einstein's main work was done,

and more allied to Kant in his later years, after relativity had

been created. Einstein explicitly rejected Kant's synthetic a

priori[2], and it was only later that he began to embrace some

aspects of the Kantian methodology.[3]

In fact, in Einstein's response to the two essays from which XXX

quoted, ones which "both aim to treat my occasional utterances of

epistemological content systematically," Einstein states:

"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of

noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other.

Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty

scheme. Science without epistemology is--insofar as it is

thinkable at all--primitive and muddled."[4]

And Einstein then goes on to describe how as an epistemologist he

can be seen alternatively as a realist, an idealist, a

positivist, and a Platonist or Pythagorean. In fact, when

Einstein identified the single most important philosophical

influence on himself, as weaved through the course of his life,

it was not Kant, nor Mach, nor Poincare, it was David Hume.[5]

XXXXXXXXXX

However, rather than bicker over what percentage of Einstein's

philosophical utterances represent different influences at

different times in his life, the really important thing is

Einstein's physics. It is, after all, for his physics that

Einstein is considered to be a genius, not for his philosophy. It

is not rational to judge Einstein's physics by his philosophical

writings any more than we would judge Ayn Rand's philosophy by

how well she played ping-pong. It is not at all unusual to find

people of great accomplishment whose philosophical views do not

reflect the nature of their work. In business, Bill Gates and

Microsoft come to mind.

I eventually intend to rescue Einstein from those who condemn his

physics and/or methodology because they do not agree with

Einstein's purported philosophy (XXXXX), but here I will at least

briefly justify the original Einstein quote I provided, the one

which surprised XXX. I will begin with the advice which Einstein

offered in the opening of the "Spencer" lecture from which XXX

partially quoted.

"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists

about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one

principle: don't listen to their words, fix your attention on

their deeds."[6]

This is sage advice,

XXXXX

especially when analyzing Einstein, whose more philosophical

utterances often bore little relation to the physics which he

did. As a reminder, here is the original Einstein quote I

provided.

"Turning to the subject of the theory of relativity, I want to

emphasize that this theory has no speculative origin, it rather

owes its discovery only to the desire to adapt theoretical

physics to observable facts as closely as possible. This is by no

means a revolutionary process but merely the natural development

of a trail that can be traced through the centuries. The

abandonment of certain concepts of space, time and motion,

treated up till now as fundamental, must not be perceived as

voluntary, but only as enforced by observed facts."[7]

I intend elsewhere to demonstrate the full consistency of these

words of Einstein with what is known about the factual

development of special relativity. Here I will but highlight the

issue. In a letter to Friedrich Adler[8], dated 4 August 1918,

Einstein harshly critiques a manuscript Adler wrote on

relativity, a manuscript which Adler sent to Einstein the

previous month, saying "I am very eager to know what you say to

it."[9] In no uncertain terms, Einstein tells Adler:

"I find that a theory can be taken seriously from the physical

standpoint only when it does justice to the following

observational results:

1) Fizeau's experiment.

2) Motion of electrons in an electromagn. field.

3) Aberration law.

4) Michelson's experiment.

"For it was these facts which compelled the formulation of the

special theory of relativity. You made no attempt to address

these fundamental facts ..."[8]

So here Einstein, again, speaks of facts which "compelled the

formulation of the special theory of relativity," and Einstein

condemns Adler because his theory "made no attempt to address

these fundamental facts." And now we have four explicit

experimental facts which Einstein singles out, and against which

we can check to see how they played a role in Einstein's

development of his theory.

Already in 1899, six years before the special theory was

finalized, while still a student at the Zurich Polytechnic

Physics Institute, Einstein wrote to his future wife, Mileva

Maric.

"A good idea occurred to me in Aarau about a way of investigating

how the bodies' relative motion with respect to the luminiferous

ether affects the velocity of propagation of light in transparent

bodies. Also a theory on this matter occurred to me, which seems

to me to be highly probable."[10]

This is the earliest reference by Einstein to Fizeau's experiment

on the velocity of light in moving water, and it shows how

Einstein already this early was developing a beginning theory

"enforced by observed facts." In another letter to Mileva Maric,

Einstein says:

"I wrote to Professor Wien in Aachen about the paper on the

relative motion of the luminiferous ether against ponderable

matter, which the 'Principal' treated in such a stepmotherly

fashion. I read a very interesting paper published by this man on

the same topic in 1898."[11]

The "interesting paper" Einstein refers to is Wein's "On

Questions that Relate to the Translatory Motion of the Light

Ether,"[12] in which Wein not only discusses the Fitzeau

experiment, but also discusses the famous 1887 Michelson-Morley

experiment, in which a null result for the stationary ether was

found. This ties together with Einstein's later identification of

the Michelson-Morley experiment as his "first path ... to ...

relativity."

"While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came

to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came

to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth

with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's

null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to

the special theory of relativity."[13]

As to Einstein's focus on the second of his stated experimental

results to Adler, the " Motion of electrons in an electromagn.

field," the details of this start to become a bit technical for

this audience here. However, suffice it to say that I have found

many detailed references which connects these experimental

results to the formulation of the theory. A simple general

statement of this by Einstein, one which grows out the results of

Faraday's experiments, is:

"My direct path to the special theory of relativity was

determined above all by the conviction that the induced

electromotive force of a conductor moving in a magnetic field was

nothing else but an electric field."[14]

And also,

"The phenomena of electromagnetic induction forced me to

postulate the (special) principle of relativity."[15]

There are dozens of examples such as these, and many which

demonstrate in technical depth the direct connection between

experimental fact and the formulation of Einstein's special

relativity. Regardless of what one thinks of Einstein's

philosophical utterances--and there are many such which are quite

positive statements--there exists an undeniable connection

between, not just the verification of Einstein's theory of

special relativity, but also between the development of the

theory, and the experimental facts. As that original quote of

Einstein states,

"Turning to the subject of the theory of relativity, I want to

emphasize that this theory has no speculative origin, it rather

owes its discovery only to the desire to adapt theoretical

physics to observable facts as closely as possible."

We simply cannot condemn Einstein's physics, or the means by

which he arrived at his results, simply because we do not like

some of Einstein's philosophical views. Facts are facts.

[1]--Albert Einstein, letter to Paul Ehrenfest dated 24 October

1916, in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 8, The

Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914-1918, _Princeton University

Press_, 1998, Document 269.

[2] "The Advancement of Science, and It's Burdens," Gerald

Holton, _Harvard University Press_, p. XXVII, 1986/1998.

[3] "Kant's Impact on Einstein's Thought," Mara Beller, in

"Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909," Einstein Studies

Volume 1, Don Howard and John Stachel, editors, _Birkhauser_,

2000.

[4]--Albert Einstein, "Reply to Criticisms," in "Albert Einstein:

Philosopher-scientist," Edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, _Harper

Torchbooks_, pp. 683-684, 1949/1951.

[5] More quotes than I need to document. For instance: "Hume made

a really powerful impression on me." (see reference [1]) and "In

this also you saw correctly that this line of thought had a great

influence on my efforts, and more specifically, E. mach, and even

more so Hume, whose 'Treatise of Human Nature' I studied avidly

..." (letter to Moritz Schlick dated 14 december 1915, in "The

Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 8, The Berlin Years:

Correspondence, 1914-1918, _Princeton University Press_, 1998,

Document 165.

[6] "On the Method of Theoretical Physics," Herbert Spencer

Lecture delivered at Oxford on June 10, 1933, reprinted in Albert

Einstein, "Ideas and Opinions," _Three Rivers Press_, 1954/1982.

[7]--Albert Einstein, "King College Lecture," before 13 June

1921, in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 7, The

Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921, _Princeton University Press_,

2002, Document 58.

[8]--Albert Einstein, letter to Friedrich Adler dated 4 August

1918, in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 8, The

Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914-1918, _Princeton University

Press_, 1998, Document 594.

[9]--Friedrich Adler, letter to Einstein dated 6 July 1918, in

"The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 8, The Berlin

Years: Correspondence, 1914-1918, _Princeton University Press_,

1998, Document 582.

[10]--Albert Einstein, letter to Mileva Maric dated 10 September

1899, in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 1, The

Early Years, 1879-1902, _Princeton University Press_, 1998,

Document 54.

[11]--Albert Einstein, letter to Mileva Maric dated 28 September

1899, in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Volume 1, The

Early Years, 1879-1902, _Princeton University Press_, 1998,

Document 57.

[12]--Wilhelm Wien, "Uber die Fragen, welche die translatorische

Bewegung des Lichaethers betreffen," _Annalen der Physik unf

Chemie_, 65, No. 3, pp. i-xviii, 1898.

[13]---Albert Einstein, "How I Created The Theory of Relativity",

Speech at Kyoto University, Dec. 1922, reprinted in "The World of

Physics," Jefferson Hane Weaver, _Simon and Schuster_, 1987.

[14]--Albert Einstein in a 1952 letter to Shankland, quoted in

Gerald Holton, "Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to

Einstein," _Harvard University Press_, 1973.

[15]--Albert Einstein, Einstein Archives 2-070, reprinted in

"Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909," Einstein Studies

Volume 1, Don Howard and John Stachel, editors, _Birkhauser_,

2000.

**********************************************************

[ADS 0]

That's a very good question, one which I addressed sometime ago in a post to HBL. ...

Stephen, I couldn't let this wonderful post of yours go by without emphasizing it. Reading what you just wrote here, along with re-reading your old HBL post, makes crystal clear once again how rational Einstein's scientific methodology was, and what a historical injustice it would be to condemn him and his scientific thought on account of whatever false philosophical utterances he made.

While he was born in 1879, Einstein gets my vote as the second greatest mind of the 20th century, only behind Ayn Rand.

[Guest danielshrugged]

Even Kant thought that a proper scientific methodology has to be inductive after it gets through an initial stage that is basically deductive. My question is not whether Einstein's methodology is inductive; it is whether his methdology is properly and rigorously inductive. Based on my (admittedly non-expert) reading of Einstein, I have some doubts about his rigor. I don't think he has sufficient evidence, for example, to say that his principle of the equivalence between gravitation and acceleration sheds any light on the nature of gravitation. I saw no reason, in Einstein, to believe that this equivalence was much more than a coincidence. His prediction of the curvature of light around the sun was confirmed--and he was also able to account for certain things that seemed peculiar about Mercury's orbit--but given how little he knew about light and about gravitation, I don't think his certainty in general relativity was justified. Yes, his theory accounts for several observations which Newton would not have known how to account for; but is Einstein's theory the only one that accounts for them? I'm not sure.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Thank you very much, Alex. I really appreciate your remarks.

What amazes me is not only the unjust denigration of Einstein by some Objectivsts, but the simultaneous veneration of Newton while ignoring the monumental evidence of Newton's far worse words and views. I can abide with their readily-apparent ignorance of the physics of Einstein, but taking out-of-context remarks without any attempt to understand their nature, or ridiculing Einstein because he is reputed to have said that we wanted to know the thoughts of God, is just unconscionable.

It's interesting to note that in 1919, after Einstein was catapulted to celebrity status by a dramatic experimental confirmation of a unique prediction of general relativity, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church, asked Einstein "what effect relativity would have on religion," Einstein replied "None. Relativity is a purely scientific matter and has nothing to do with religion." [1]

In 1692, when the Anglican clergyman Reverend Richard Bentley asked Newton for his help in developing arguments using Newton's new physics for proving the existence of God, to be published in his book A Confutation of Aetheism, Newton responded with four famous letters later printed with the title Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley, containing Some Arguments in Proof of a Deity. Newton opened his first letter with the following: "Sir, When I wrote my Treatise about our System, I had an Eye upon such Principles as might work with considering Men, for the Belief of Deity, and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that Purpose." [2]

So Einstein is ridiculed over God though Einstein separates religion from science, and Newton is praised while Newton rejoices in using his physics for proof of God. Go figure this comes from Objectivists.

[1] Philipp Frank, Einstein: His Life and Times, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, pp. 189-190, 1947.

[2] December 10, 1692 Letter from Newton to Bentley, reprinted in Bernard Cohen, Isaac Newton's Papers & Letters on Natural Philosophy, Harvard University Press, p. 280, 1958.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Even Kant thought that a proper scientific methodology has to be inductive after it gets through an initial stage that is basically deductive. My question is not whether Einstein's methodology is inductive; it is whether his methdology is properly and rigorously inductive. Based on my (admittedly non-expert) reading of Einstein, I have some doubts about his rigor. I don't think he has sufficient evidence, for example, to say that his principle of the equivalence between gravitation and acceleration sheds any light on the nature of gravitation. I saw no reason, in Einstein, to believe that this equivalence was much more than a coincidence.

That's a very interesting comment, considering that whatever your standard of "rigor" be, since Newton it resulted in centuries of stagnation in the field of gravitation until Einstein came along. May I ask, since you say that you "saw no reason, in Einstein," what have you read of Einstein? Did you read his popular book, or did you read his technical papers and correspondence during the decade in which he transitioned from the special to the general theory? I realize you say you base your judgment on an "admittedly non-expert ... reading of Einstein," but it would be helpful to understand what in particular you base your judgment on.

Also, since "rigor" is a concern, could you first please state what you think Einstein's equivalence principle to be. Since you conclude that he did not have "sufficient evidence" for the principle, surely the simplistic "equivalence between gravitation and acceleration" is not what you would advance as Einstein's principle for "rigorous" consideration.

His prediction of the curvature of light around the sun was confirmed--and he was also able to account for certain things that seemed peculiar about Mercury's orbit--but given how little he knew about light and about gravitation, I don't think his certainty in general relativity was justified.

What "certainty" was that? Citation please.

Yes, his theory accounts for several observations which Newton would not have known how to account for; but is Einstein's theory the only one that accounts for them? I'm not sure.

Several observations? How about:

1. The light deflection in a gravitational field.

2. The Shapiro time-delay of light.

3. The perihelion shift of an orbiting body.

4. Speed of gravitational waves.

5. Propagation speed of finite changes in the gravitational field.

6. The gravitational clock rate shift.

7. Frame dragging in LAGEOS orbits.

8. deSitter geodetic precession.

9. Lense-Thirring effect.

10. Gravitational binding energy.

11. Binary pulsar systems.

12. Etc....

As to other theories that account for all the known observations and experiments, there exists an entire class of theories that live within the experimental bounds of general relativity. As the years go by these theories continue to drop out as technology reduces the experimental bounds. All of these theories are variations on general relativity, and none could have been built apart from or independent of general relativity. General relativity is our gold standard for real-world gravitation, an ongoing process of predicting and experimentally confirming a seemingly endless array of phenomena not even dreamt of before.

[Guest danielshrugged]

That's a very interesting comment, considering that whatever your standard of "rigor" be, since Newton it resulted in centuries of stagnation in the field of gravitation until Einstein came along.

There's a difference between stagnation and working on other questions until they shed some light once again on gravitation.

May I ask, since you say that you "saw no reason, in Einstein," what have you read of Einstein? Did you read his popular book, or did you read his technical papers and correspondence during the decade in which he transitioned from the special to the general theory?

I read the following and went over them very slowly as part of a math class this past year: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1905), Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content (1905), On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light (1905, read in my lab class), The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity (1916), and Relativity: The Special and General Theory (i.e., the popular book).

Several observations? How about:

I am basing my assessment of Einstein only on the evidence Einstein himself provides at the point in time when he claims his special or his general theory to be proved. Also, I just wanted to register my disagreement rather than getting involved in a discussion. I am short on time and don't even have access to my books at the moment.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

There's a difference between stagnation and working on other questions until they shed some light once again on gravitation.

According to most dictionaries, to stagnate means not to develop or make progress.

I read the following and went over them very slowly as part of a math class this past year: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1905), Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content (1905), On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light (1905, read in my lab class), The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity (1916), and Relativity: The Special and General Theory (i.e., the popular book).

The three 1905 papers are irrelevant to the issue you raised. The first technical paper dealing with that issue appeared in 1907. The 1916 paper presents the theory after it was developed, but the issue you raised has to do with an aspect of Einstein developing the theory, not its final presentation. The popular book is ... well, a popular book, not particularly insightful to the issue you raised.

I am basing my assessment of Einstein only on the evidence Einstein himself provides at the point in time when he claims his special or his general theory to be proved. Also, I just wanted to register my disagreement rather than getting involved in a discussion. I am short on time and don't even have access to my books at the moment.

Okay. Disagreement: noted. Evidence for disagreement: not noted.

[ADS 0]

Thank you very much, Alex. I really appreciate your remarks.

You're quite welcome.

What amazes me is not only the unjust denigration of Einstein by some Objectivsts, but the simultaneous veneration of Newton while ignoring the monumental evidence of Newton's far worse words and views. I can abide with their readily-apparent ignorance of the physics of Einstein, but taking out-of-context remarks without any attempt to understand their nature, or ridiculing Einstein because he is reputed to have said that we wanted to know the thoughts of God, is just unconscionable.

[...]

Great quotes illustrating a great point. I'd say that your knowledge is encyclopedic but even encyclopedias don't make this many integratons.

So Einstein is ridiculed over God though Einstein separates religion from science, and Newton is praised while Newton rejoices in using his physics for proof of God. Go figure this comes from Objectivists.

Yes, it's bizarre. If Newton was judged by the standard that some judge Einstein, Newton would fare quite miserably indeed. And I'm not just talking about God or philosophical views per se, but things like the "empty mathematical formalism" charge as well.

We should be able to revere both of these great physicists for their actual accomplishments, without improperly romanticizing or vilifying either of them.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

We should be able to revere both of these great physicists for their actual accomplishments, without improperly romanticizing or vilifying either of them.

Amen to that! These were two great men.

And, in regard to the current discussion, if Daniel had simply asked: "What is Einstein's equivalence principle, how was it used, and what evidence was it based on," I would have bent over backwards attempting to explain it all, as I usually do. Instead, he criticized the proper rigor of Einstein's methodology, using an imprecise statement of the equivalence principle without understanding how it was developed and used. Imagine someone coming here and criticizing Ayn Rand for saying you should murder people who annoy you, without understanding her actual concept of selfishness and how it was developed and used.

It's wrong for a fair and just person who values greatness, to do to Einstein what he would never do to Ayn Rand. It makes me angry that some Objectivists, especially some prominent ones, take pot shots at Einstein while being ignorant of his actual physics and methods.

There is no need to denigrate Einstein in order to venerate Newton. Personally, I am fed up and disgusted with this.

[Guest danielshrugged]

I don't think he has sufficient evidence, for example, to say that his principle of the equivalence between gravitation and acceleration sheds any light on the nature of gravitation.

Just to clarify: I did not mean to give a statement of the equivalence principle. I meant to indicate my doubt whether the "since" in the quote below is justified. He may elaborate in other papers, I grant you. That is why I indicated my doubts ("I have some doubts") and opinions ("I don't think") and did not declare with any certainty that Einstein committed any grave errors.

It will be seen from these reflexions that in pursuing the general theory of relativity we shall be led to a theory of gravitation, since we are able to "produce" a gravitational field merely by changing the system of co-ordinates. -- Einstein, Foundation of the General Theory

By the way, I think Einstein was a scientific genius, despite my criticisms.

[tommyedison 0]

That's a very good question, one which I addressed sometime ago in a post to HBL..[..]

Thank you for the very detailed reply. Sometimes I find it rather amazing that a person can be so rational in one sphere of life and so irrational in others (like Einstein was in politics).

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

-------------

There is no need to denigrate Einstein in order to venerate Newton. Personally, I am fed up and disgusted with this.

I am totally unaware of such debate about Einstein and Newton among Objectivists. However, my own opinion about this concerns the historical context of each person. Newton's achievements were taking place within the context of an intellectual revolution against religious dogmatism within the culture. Newton's discoveries clearly resulted in the replacing of the religious world view with a scientific one. But I think there is a limit to how much one can expect any genius to challenge EVERY element within his culture. (An example is the Founding Fathers acceptance of slavery.) Einstein, however, was writing within a culture based upon science and reason. His scientific explanation of the world replaced an older scientific explanation of the world. Religion, as a culture force, was dying in the early 20th century. His repudiation of religion would have had little or no consequences to him. His endorsement of religion or, at the least, his failure to repudiate it is a more significant point than Newton's failure to challenge his religious cultural context. However, the failure of either person to repudiate religion is not a reason to attack his science or in any way a denigration of their genius.

[rich 0]

While we're on the subject of Einstein's social beliefs, I have wondered for a long time: could Einstein possibly have been Rand's motivation for the character Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged? In Atlas, Stadler is said to be the only one who truly betrayed the public, because Stadler "had a mind to know better" than to promote socialistic ideals, as Einstein did.

In an essay from The Voice of Reason, Rand says something about having intended Stadler to illustrate the importance of philosophy to scientists in general. But, since Stadler was as big a celebrity scientist as Einstein was, and also as brilliant, I've always thought that Stadler was Rand's depiction of Einstein.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

But, since Stadler was as big a celebrity scientist as Einstein was, and also as brilliant, I've always thought that Stadler was Rand's depiction of Einstein.

Consider other candidates as well. Chapter 9, "Top Secret," Journals of Ayn Rand, contains her journal entries for the work she did in 1945-1946 on a proposed movie about the development of the atomic bomb. She interviewed several of the top scientists, including the director of the scientific side of the project -- Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.

[PhilO 0]

While we're on the subject of Einstein's social beliefs, I have wondered for a long time: could Einstein possibly have been Rand's motivation for the character Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged?

I don't see any strong connection. Einstein wasn't looking for power, he didn't want to run his own "State Science Institute" - as I recall, he was offered the position of the first Prime Minister of Israel and firmly rejected the offer. He didn't ask for millions of government dollars in handouts and accomplished his life's work with his brain and a pencil and paper.

I think a far better real world model for Stadler would have been Andrei Sakharov, the physicist who gave the Russian communists their H-bomb, even granting that in later life, he acquired the role of dissident (a pretty weak atonement for his actions in my opinion.)

[Betsy Speicher 0]

What amazes me is not only the unjust denigration of Einstein by some Objectivsts, but the simultaneous veneration of Newton while ignoring the monumental evidence of Newton's far worse words and views. I can abide with their readily-apparent ignorance of the physics of Einstein, but taking out-of-context remarks without any attempt to understand their nature, or ridiculing Einstein because he is reputed to have said that we wanted to know the thoughts of God, is just unconscionable.

[...]

So Einstein is ridiculed over God though Einstein separates religion from science, and Newton is praised while Newton rejoices in using his physics for proof of God. Go figure this comes from Objectivists.

Yes, it's bizarre. If Newton was judged by the standard that some judge Einstein, Newton would fare quite miserably indeed. And I'm not just talking about God or philosophical views per se, but things like the "empty mathematical formalism" charge as well.

We should be able to revere both of these great physicists for their actual accomplishments, without improperly romanticizing or vilifying either of them.

For those who would like to understand the depth of Newton's religiosity, there is a new virtual exhibit, 'Newton's Secrets' from the Jewish National and University Library," that you can view here.

This exhibition sheds new light on Isaac Newton, the greatest physicist of all times. The manuscripts of this collection, one of the treasures of the Jewish National and University Library, discuss Biblical interpretation, the architecture of the Jewish Temple, ancient history, alchemy and the Apocalypse.