[lit-ideas] Re: Einsteiniana
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 15:27:29 +0100 (BST)
>One essay, P, Frank's "Einstein, Mach, and Logical Positivism', reveals an
astounding fact.
"Because of the close connection, which obviously exists between
Einstein's theory of relativity and Mach's philosophy, Lenin feared that
Einstein's
theories might become a Trojan horse for the infiltration of idealistic
currents among Russian scientists and among educated classes in general.">
To be read in conjunction with Popper's "A Note on Berkeley as Precursor to
Mach and Einstein", now in Conjectures & Refutations.
dnl
armed with a crowbar
ldn
On Sunday, 11 May 2014, 13:33, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 5/10/2014 9:48:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Everyone on this forum knows that if we study a subject a lot and then
keep on studying it; eventually we will know more about it than almost anyone
we know – assuming we start our study with adequate intelligence. This
seems to me what the Ashkenazi Jews started doing 800 years ago. But is
natural selection an adequate explanation for what happened in the 20th
century, for Einstein for example? We know there are genetic “triggers” of
various sorts; mightn’t the intense study needed for mastering money-lending
have
triggered an intellectual benefit that was to some extent heritable?
Maybe not, but it doesn’t seem as though there were enough generations for
natural selection to explain those results."
I see D. McEvoy has addressed the more general topic of L. Helm's post
about cultural "vs." biological evolution, but I wanted to focus specifically
on Einstein, before we move on!
there are OTHER ways to fit Einstein into the picture!
One line of argument would be to sort of show that there's more in Einstein
than a development of 'money-lending'! -- a lot of chance comes into play
as one can fascinatingly find by reading about Einstein's early years! Oh,
the effect of that gift -- Euclid's book -- by the family friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
"When Einstein was ten years old, Max Talmud (later changed to Max Talmey),
a poor Jewish medical student from Poland, was introduced to the Einstein
family by his brother. During weekly visits over the next five years, he
gave the boy popular books on science, mathematical texts and philosophical
writings. These included Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and
Euclid's Elements (which Einstein called the "holy little geometry book")"
For a philosopher of science, Einstein's genetic background may be largely
irrelevant! For the record, part of the contents to
Schilpp, Paul Arthur, ed. (1949). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist.
The Library of Living Philosophers, vol. 7. Evanston, IL: The Library of
Living Philosophers.
that lists Einstein as a a 'living philosopher'. (Since McEvoy discussed
Helm's post vis-à-vis Popper in his first response -- and Popper merited a
volume in Schilpp's series -- McEvoy's second response focuses on
'intelligence' rather).
This is as per R. Erskins's notes at
http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Philosopher-Scientist-Library-Philosop
hers/product-reviews/0875481337/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoi
nts=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
After the introduction and preface the book opens with Einstein's
"Autobiographical Notes," written in German.
We may read both the German text and English translation on the facing
pages, and compare the two,
The next section contains a series of essays by Einstein's esteemed
colleagues and contemporaries.
Among them are W. Pauli, M.Born, N. Bohr, K. Goedel, G. Bachelard and
others of equal stature.
Some contributors disagree with Einstein's position on statistical quantum
theory, M. Born in particular.
Others tackle the epistemological issues of their time, illuminating
subtle philosophical considerations that quickened the numerous advances in
theoretical physics during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
One essay, P, Frank's "Einstein, Mach, and Logical Positivism', reveals an
astounding fact.
"Because of the close connection, which obviously exists between
Einstein's theory of relativity and Mach's philosophy, Lenin feared that
Einstein's
theories might become a Trojan horse for the infiltration of idealistic
currents among Russian scientists and among educated classes in general."
Einstein answers each contributor at the end of the book in his "Remarks
to the Essays Appearing in this Collective Volume."
He begins with Pauli and Born, primarily because of their position on
statistical quantum theory, whereupon Einstein launches into a fascinating
defense of his own position.
But as with all the contributors, the tone throughout was gentle and
respectful.
And one comes away with the impression that Einstein was beloved by his
contemporaries because he returned that love in kind.
The result was a mighty collusion of powerful minds that changed the
world.
"Now, if only politicians and preachers could do the same!", Erkins
comments.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
