Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: anti-relativists (was: Re: A historical episode)



On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Stephen Speicher wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Stephen Speicher wrote:

Reading Gamow's account of the Soviet persecution leaves me with
a dual sense: one of horror at the state intervention, trial, and
penalties, along with a farcical sense -- the jury which judged
the scientists were the machine-shop workers of the institute!
(A bit reminiscent of the anti-relativists making judgments on
this group.)

What is the problem with those anti-relativists?


That is a very good question. I would say that, more than
anything else, the most basic problem with the
"anti-relativists" is their intellectual dishonesty -- the
refusal to think and recognize their errors no matter how many
times, or in how many ways, such errors are clearly identified by
those who actually understand. This sort of
epistemological/psychological aberration is not anything new to
relativity.

In a 1922 letter to Max Born, Einstein incidentally mentions a
"monumental blunder" he made "some time ago (my experiment on the
emission of light with positive rays)." In his commentary on this
letter, in the book "The Born-Einstein Letters," _Macmillan_,
1971, Born first mentions the "anti-relativists" who fail to
learn from their mistakes as Einstein did. In one paragraph,
Born notes:

"Finally, there are the pure cranks, outsiders who can
point to no positive scientific achievements themselves
but who believe that they have found defects in some
new doctrine such as Einstein's theory of relativity.
One would think there would be fewer of these as time
goes on. But this is not so. Over the years a large
number of first-class physicists and mathematicians
have thoroughly investigated the theory of relativity
and none has found fault with it. It is hard,
therefore, today to take seriously anyone who believes
he has discovered a mistake. I have frequently taken
the trouble to uncover the errors in papers written by
cranks of this type, but never in all my experience has
any of them admitted that he had made a mistake, as
Einstein did."

Born's comments were written a long time ago, but his words
remain true today. There will always be a small but hard-core
group of intellectually dishonest "anti-relativists" who neither
understand the theory nor have the integrity to see the error of
their ways.


Note that this is less a science forum and more a science EDUCATION forum.
There is little danger for a wrong or incompetent scientific statement to
be taken too seriously, to mislead the scientific community etc. Rather,
like any student's question, it would always be useful - e.g. it could show
what in textbooks is not clear. I am afraid your attitude makes
participants too prudent - for instance, they may refrain from discussing
different approaches in textbooks, textbook confusions etc.


Huh? Whatever are you talking about?

Max Born (and myself) was referring to cranks -- the
intellectually dishonest, those who are unable or unwilling to
listen to reason -- not those who truly seek clarity in textbooks
or on e-mail lists. As Born stated: "the pure cranks, outsiders
who can point to no positive scientific achievements themselves
but who believe that they have found defects in some new doctrine
such as Einstein's theory of relativity."

Rationality imposes no arbitrary restraints on "discussing
different approaches in textbooks, textbook confusions etc." In
fact, it is the rational and knowledgeable mind which pushes the
envelope of understanding, not the ignorant crank who is
completely unable to grasp the issues, forever discarding facts
in favor of his feelings. As Born said: "I have frequently taken
the trouble to uncover the errors in papers written by cranks of
this type, but never in all my experience has any of them
admitted that he had made a mistake."

The hallmark of the pure crank is that he is impervious to
criticism, blindly carrying on in his endless quest to shoot an
arrow through the heart of some body of physics. But, in
reality, the crank is disarmed; his bow is crooked and his arrow
never flies straight, time after time shooting himself in the
foot instead.

--
Stephen
speicher@caltech.edu

Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.

Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------