Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Einstein given too much credit.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Einstein given too much credit.
    Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 13:02
I couldn't have said it better Decebal. Social sciences are mostly subjective. Though they can use protocols of the hard sciences in their research. So it is not so flimsy and speculative as the hardists would have us believe.
 
Pieinsky expresses an oft overlooked point. The brains behind the gadgets and theories need to be taken into the same context of the inventions themselves. For human egotism would tarnish even the most gullible of souls. 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 14:54
Originally posted by Decebal

The thing with science is that it is almost universally recognized as having positive results (even when the results are catastrophic: see the atom bomb). Social sciences and arts are subjective.


Oh, I can think of a few catastrophic results from the social sciences. Karl Marx. Leo Strauss. Alfred Rosenberg.


    
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
  Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 17:20
edgewaters, I'm not saying that social sciences do not produce catastrophic results. They undoubtedly do, in fact they do so much more often than one would desire. What I was saying is that science does as well, but the perception that people have of it is different.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 18:14
I'd like to know if you would like this world if suddenly it became devoid of sociologists, anthropologists, psycologists, actors, militery stratigists and political leaders


Leaders and artists are usually not "social scientists". When was the last time that a U.S. president had a PhD in political science? Did any religious prophet actually studied religion as an academic topic? Did Monet write any research papers in art history?

You're thinking of social artists, not social scientists. Military leaders are also "artists" not scientists.


Edited by Imperator Invictus - 18-Jul-2006 at 18:19
Back to Top
Roadkill View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote Roadkill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 18:22
*tilt*

 -Social sciences are not as "important" because they are within us all. We all have emotions, they are with us all the time. If social scientists disappeared and all trace of their work as well it would not mean that we would lose our humanity. However, if you take away the theory of gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc, you'd have a very different world.

 -We still feel the same things regardless of how much research there is on this situation or that emotion. Unlike these things knowledge is not  an inherent trait in humans......

(Came out a bit odd but you hopefully understand what I mean)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 18:35
I agree with some of your points.

Specifically, natural scientists and social scientists have  different roles. In the field of natural science, it is the scientists that are at the forefront of change (I would also categorize engineers as scientists). On the other hand, in the field of social science, it is the leaders, not the social scientists that are the influence. In this case, social scientists serve the role of explaining what has already happened, rather being at the forefront of change. The distinction is not black and white clear, but I think in general, that is a rule of thumb.

Another way to look at the issue, as mentioned in the above post, is that if we take away all "social science," we would still have a pretty well-functioning society. This is because topics like political science and economics are reasonably well-integrated into the human mind. Genghis Khan did not need to extensive academic research to understand how to lead his army.

In terms of actual importance, I don't think natural science is more important as an intellectual field (even though Pieinsky seems to imply that I do think so). But I do think that there's a difference between the roles of a natural scientist and a social scientists, and due to that difference, individual natural scientists have had a larger influence in history, because the influence of "social scientists" have been taken away by "social artist".

Edited by Imperator Invictus - 18-Jul-2006 at 18:36
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 22:46
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

Einstein's contributions are not only relatively. His contributions to the photoelectric effect are one of the most fundamental to quantum physics. He also did work on Brownian motion, which is fundamental to materials engineering.As for relativity, the work has not had a lot of practical typical applications. That's true.


Well, it's true he did make other contributions beside relativity that are used in alot of modern technology ... but ... without relativity, Einstein is just one of a long line of scientists in various sciences whose contributions are not exceptionally notable (besides relativity). He's just one of many in his other fields of achievement. In terms of our modern technology, I would really have to say Tesla, Marconi and Bell are the fathers of the modern world; everything else is very collaborative or incremental in nature.

I think Einstein is deified too much as some sort of science-god, and alot of the suppositions about him are just plain false. That frazzly haired picture? Einstein was achieving absolutely nothing in his later years, all his great achievements were in his youth (when he was really clean-cut); in fact, in his latter years, he was not only terribly unproductive, but he was a stifling force of scientific conservativism, constantly attacking every new theory which arose.
    
    

Edited by edgewaters - 18-Jul-2006 at 22:49
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 00:45
Even without relativity, Einstein would still be one of the greatest scientists. He was one of the most important contributors to Quantum mechanics when the field was in its beginning. The early fundamental concepts like wave-particle duality and the photoelectric effect are all accredited to Einstein.

In terms of our modern technology, I would really have to say Tesla, Marconi and Bell are the fathers of the modern world


I think your argument relates to the issue of science vs. engineering. I don't see how citing those men weakens the case for Einstein since their accomplishments are in a different category. In terms of scientific theory, those three men do not compare to Einstein.


Edited by Imperator Invictus - 19-Jul-2006 at 00:45
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 02:43

 

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus


Even without relativity, Einstein would still be one of the greatest scientists. He was one of the most important contributors to Quantum mechanics when the field was in its beginning.

Outside of relativity, he was one of several dozen individuals ... and hardly the most profound of those. Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck ... Einstein is certainly no more important than any of these. One of the most important contributors, OK, if you extend the group you call "the most important" to include dozens of individuals. Even in terms of just photoelectric effect, Einstein did little but elaborate a small bit on the work of others; it was originally known as the "Hertz effect", after Hertz, who laid down the foundation for its understanding.

I think your argument relates to the issue of science vs. engineering. I don't see how citing those men weakens the case for Einstein since their accomplishments are in a different category.

You have to follow the thread from the beginning to understand the context. Nothing Einstein did has anything to do with the development of television and computers (see earlier posts in the thread). The theoretical science behind these developments was mostly developed from the late 1700s through to the 1800s. From there in, it was principally engineering.

In terms of scientific theory, those three men do not compare to Einstein.

   
I don't know. Tesla is a good competitor. He was *not* just an engineer. Not only did he do work on many properties of electricity, he contributed a great deal to electromagnetic theory, atomic physics, even ballistics and other elements of classical physics. I think his work is in more practical fields with immediate application, and less amenable as material for the armchair philosopher and psychedelic dreamer than relativism. Also Tesla managed to turn his one-time fame into disrepute as he degenerated into insanity in his later years, speaking of impossible death rays and geomagnetic weapons, whereas Einstein was very cautious (though unproductive and critical of all new theory) in his later years.

However, relativity was understood for quite some time - since Galileo. All Einstein did, in effect, was propose that it be applied to electromagnetic effects, in order to reconcile Maxwell's electromagnetic theories with Galilean relativism.

The early fundamental concepts like wave-particle duality and the photoelectric effect are all accredited to Einstein.

Photoelectric effect - once known as Hertz effect - was just elaborated on by Einstein (whose elaboration was only one of many later revisions, including the much later Compton effect). So he neither discovered the basis of it, nor did he resolve it fully. He made a contribution, like alot of other scientists did. Later ones made equally signifigant contributions to wave-particle duality, for instance de Broglie, who proposed that all matter and energy exhibited properties of both wave and particle, not just light.

Even in quantum physics alone, Einstein should not be the quanta deity: there are simply too many others, Planck, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bohr, de Broglie, whose contributions are at least equally important (if not, in some cases, more important). Einstein was simply amenable to pop culture status.

 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 06:17
 
Originally posted by Pieinsky

I'd like to know if you would like this world if suddenly it became devoid of sociologists, anthropologists, psycologists, actors, militery stratigists and political leaders, Empathy my friends is of great importance to a speices, our speices would not have existed up to this point if it wasnt for our great psycoanalytical ability as well as the excedingly brilliant psycoanalytical ability of small subset in our speices popules from its dawn to now.
Personally I am quite disgusted by some of you at the moment. It is transparent to me that some of you have been absorbed into the convention of the perception of what the most usefull intelligince is. If you had been born during the the renaisance period in Italy you probably would have thought that the natural sciences were of little importance in comparison to art.
Not if you were Leonardo you wouldn't. Or even Drer. The Renaissance in the visual arts marks significant steps forward in chemistry, anatomy and in optics, particularly the study of persepective.
 I find it difficult to believe how little you understand societies have be formated by its power elite understanding of human behaviour . Do you think Hitler would have been able to gather so much power which eventually led to the rise of the nazi party and the extermination of many jews if it were not for his understanding that he could unite his followers under him by creating for them a common enemy .
What's that got to do with anything? No, he probably couldn't. So what? All it does it show what skilled practitioners of the social sciences the Nazis were.
 
Instead of going on about the relative importance of various sciences, just name someone you think has done as much in the social sciences in the last 100-odd years as Einstein did in physics.
 
The two other modern figures who have achieved the same kind of eminence in their day are Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Neither of them have had anything like as dominant or lasting an effect in their fields as Einstein (though at one time they seemed to come close).
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Jul-2006 at 06:18
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 06:31
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

 However, relativity was understood for quite some time - since Galileo.

 
True. Einstein didn't invent the concept of relativity (which actually had been around since well before Galileo), what he did was elaborate a theory (or two) 'of relativity' which produced predictions that ran counter to earlier ones and proved more accurate.
 
'Of relativity' is really a misnomer for Einstein's theories. The foundation of the Special Theory is actually the constancy of the speed of light (i.e. the surprising fact that it is NOT relative to the observer) so it would perhaps better be called the Special Theory of NON-Relativity. And the foundation of the General Theory is the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, leading to a geometric interpretation of gravity, so arguably that would better be called the General Theory of Gravity.
 
All Einstein did, in effect, was propose that it be applied to electromagnetic effects, in order to reconcile Maxwell's electromagnetic theories with Galilean relativism.
 
He did a whole lot more than that. The whole concept of the gravity-related curvature of the space-time continuum is owed to Einstein. Modern cosmology would be nowhere without Einstein.
 
And the problem was not reconciling Maxwell with Galileo, it was with reconciling Michelson-Morley - the constant speed of light - with Galileo. Galileo's and Newton's beliefs about relativity assumed all motion was relative. What Einstein had to do was demonstrate why that was - from observation - not true.
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 19-Jul-2006 at 06:34
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 07:33
Originally posted by gcle2003

He did a whole lot more than that. The whole concept of the gravity-related curvature of thespace-time continuum is owed to Einstein.


True, but without Minkowski there would be no space-time to curve!
    
    

Edited by edgewaters - 19-Jul-2006 at 07:36
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 09:04
And without Christoffel, Ricci or Riemann there wouldn't be any maths to create such theories Smile
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 09:57
I don't see how you can dismiss Einstein's work as simply "elaborations" because I can also claim that Tesla's work was simply an elaboration of earlier works, like those of Maxwell's. And just as so, it would be like saying Shakspeare's work was simply an elaboration of a language.

I think you also understate the importance of relativity, esepcially general relativity. It is one of the most important cornerstones of modern astrophysics.

You have to follow the thread from the beginning to understand the context. Nothing Einstein did has anything to do with the development of television and computers (see earlier posts in the thread). The theoretical science behind these developments was mostly developed from the late 1700s through to the 1800s. From there in, it was principally engineering.

Maybe it's not practical right now, but in another century, when we do a lot of space-related stuff, that's when Einstein's theory will come into place. Smile
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:33
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

I don't see how you can dismiss Einstein's work as simply "elaborations" because I can also claim that Tesla's work was simply an elaboration of earlier works, like those of Maxwell's.


I'm not dismissing it, merely putting Einstein among rather than undeservedly far above his colleagues. Have I said that he is less than them? Tesla I only named as a viable competitor, particularly because his science had alot of influence on our everyday world and technology around us.

I think you also understate the importance of relativity, esepcially general relativity. It is one of the most important cornerstones of modern astrophysics.


Yes, it's very important in astrophysics, but what about other discoveries, like gravitational attraction, space-time, etc? They are at least as fundamental and revolutionary. The problem with Einstein-worship is that it vastly diminishes other contributions.

You have to follow the thread from the beginning to understand the context. Nothing Einstein did has anything to do with the development of television and computers (see earlier posts in the thread). The theoretical science behind these developments was mostly developed from the late 1700s through to the 1800s. From there in, it was principally engineering.



Maybe it's not practical right now, but in another century, when we do a lot of space-related stuff, that's when Einstein's theory will come into place.


The context originally was an answer to a claim that Einstein was responsible for "electrical equipment" and "televisions and computers" which he is not in any way, at the present time.

As far as its future practical applications - maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? By then, there will undoubtedly be even more developments (there already have been, in fact) - will we have to diminish them too, to maintain the cult of Einstein, science-deity?
Back to Top
lennel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
  Quote lennel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 15:52
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by Roadkill

Just about any electrical equipment we use today exists due to Einstein's theories.


Eh? Relativity doesn't come into play very much with electronics. If there's a fellow who's primarily responsible for modern electrical equipment, it's Tesla.
    
 
I'd like to throw in the comment as to inevitability and einstein.  We credit him, but generally speaking scientists have many less-famous contemporaries who are working on the same subject.  Essentially, if one guy didn't invent it then 5 yrs later another would have.  We would still have electrical lighting or recorded music, without edison.  We'd have airflight without the wright bros. etc.
 
Back to Top
Roadkill View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote Roadkill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:24
 -What I meant with the statement quoted above is that Niels Bohr who was instrumental in the field of quantum mechanics and who's theory(ies) led to the ability to build small transistors(Amongst other things, transistors stick out in my memory) who then enabled all digital items to be smaller and more complex, allowing the equipment I am typing on now to become reality. His theory spawned from discussions on relativity with Einstein and his theory and that's what I mean. If the theory of relativity had not been around Bohr would not have had the "information" to propose his theory. That's what I meant.

 -Quantum theory became a hot topic of discussion amongst Bohr and Einstein with Bohr saying "it works" and Einstein saying "it's incomplete". Einstein did not dismiss the theory, he merely saw it as unfinished and used the remainder of his years fiddling around the the theory of everything, a theory that would unify quantum and relativity theory(That's one thing he didn't complete though).

 -And lennel, you're correct. However, we must give them credit nonetheless, eh? Fame and recognition is quite a driving force...
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:35
Originally posted by lennel


I'd like to throw in thecomment as to inevitability and einstein. We credit him, but generally speaking scientists have many less-famous contemporaries who are working on the same subject. Essentially, if one guy didn't invent it then 5 yrs later another would have. We would still have electrical lighting or recorded music, without edison. We'd have airflight without the wright bros. etc.


    
I've read this too and believe it but it doesnt deny Einstein came up with these things when he did.

This months discover is pretty interesting Mordehai Milgrom has some new theories that go against Einsteins.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 10:04
 
Originally posted by edgewaters


True, but without Minkowski there would be no space-time to curve!      
Originally posted by Chilbudios

And without Christoffel, Ricci or Riemann there wouldn't be any maths to create such theories Smile
 
Both of course correct.
 
That's why I was a little careful in what I wrote.
Back to Top
Odin View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
  Quote Odin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 21:00
Originally posted by Pieinsky

I think natural scientists are given too much credit compared to social sciences, artists of all types.
 
Social scientists allow us to understand human nature, which is key to happiness, I cant believe it, your well versed in the area of history yet you don't realise that societies were greatly defined by their understanding of the human psyce. I thought the purpose of life was to enjoy it as much as one can while taking  a substatial amount of consideration to others who deserve it. Technollogy alone is not the only factor that determines human happiness.
  Many nation share an equal technological level but some are more culturally backwards then others. What the hells the point of a country who is evile by definition(more evile then neighbours) building nuclear warheads when its people are psycotic, insesitive, question with red lights to a high degree. technollogy is not as important as it is conventially believed to be by humans. I rather have lived amongst the celts who were culturally superior to the vikings then the vikings who were technollogical superior but culturally inferior to the celts. However certain technologies allow certain cultural advancements.Smile
 
I am sick of great natural scientists and great mathamatitions being made into Gods while great humans who dedicated their lives to other area's are made seem less important then natural scientists. Smile
 
As far as I'm concerned, the social sciences are nothing more then applied biology.
"Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now."

-Arnold J. Toynbee
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.