Theme: Truth

  • TRUTH AND ETHICS IN ARGUMENT In my quest to cleanse libertarianism of platonism,

    TRUTH AND ETHICS IN ARGUMENT

    In my quest to cleanse libertarianism of platonism, and possibly put at least one nail in the coffin of Postmodern thought, Ive come up with two avenues of argument :

    1) Operational language: Operational language (action) forces us to distinguish between platonic and real. The moment something must be described as actions, it becomes scientific. If it is not described as actions, and observable actions, then it’s not. It’s fantasy. (Platonic)

    2) Ethics: I am pretty sure the requirement to speak in operational language is not a matter of ‘truth’ but of ‘ethics’. In other words, its unethical not to speak in operational language, precisely because it allows us to confuse the platonic and the real. This approach is consistent with the ETHICAL constraint libertarians demonstrate as a preference: the visibility of voluntary and involuntary transfers.

    It is much easier to argue using BOTH of these lines of argument at the same time. Mathematical and logical platonists can have their cake imaginary cake, but they can’t actually eat it. Because if you use mathematical and logical platonism to cross the line into economics and politics, you’re now a crook. Worse, you’re advocating thievery.

    In this case, the first platonic argument that I want to kill off is the constraint that ‘magical numbers’ (infinity) and magical sets ‘infinite sets’, place constraints on theories. (They don’t) Semantic ally meaningful combinations open to sympathetic testing are very low in number. And as I’ve said elsewhere, our problem in the construction of theories is one of words, but cognitive bias, instrumentation and measurement.

    Kenneth Allen Hopf has helped me with this argument, by positioning Popper’s advice as moral, or perhaps more narrowly, ethical. Just as, I would argue, is Nassim Taleb’s improvement on Popper, and Poincaire, and perhaps those of Mandelbrot as well.

    This school of thought is called ‘finitism’ in mathematics. The finitist movement stalled with Russell, Cantor and set theory, at which point it became impossible without using operational language, to prove finitism. So mathematical and set theory today is platonic. Most mathematicians and logisticians are platonists.

    Of course, I’m working on moral and ethical theory, because any political system must rely upon some ethical basis, or it’s not logical to discuss ‘politics’ (persuasion) – it’s just engineering of human beings as if they’re cattle.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 14:07:00 UTC

  • As far as I know, current set theory is still in conflict with finitism but neit

    As far as I know, current set theory is still in conflict with finitism but neither argument is provable. We can only prove that finitism has no answer to set theory.

    As far as I know, infinity is not a measurement, and not rational concept – it is a purely platonic concept.

    As far as I know there is nothing that we can knowingly (scientifically) demonstrate is infinite – very large, unmeasurable, inestimable, but not infinite unless we discuss actions.

    As far as I understand, most of the problem with these discussion is metaphysical: confusing the platonic INSTRUMENTS, with physical MEASUREMENTS.

    For purpose of INSTRUMENTATION, (deduction) we (arguably, foolishly) rely on infinitudes of various kinds. But for purpose of measurement, we cannot actually perform any infinite measure because I cannot take an infinite measure, nor can I infinitely repeat a series of measures.

    That mathematical DEDUCTION uses the same symbols as arithmetic measurement is confusing. We must deduce many measurements because direct measurement is impractical. That is largely, the value of both geometry (fixed measurement) and calculus(relative measurement). But there still is a metaphysical difference between measurements (real) and deductions (unreal) despite the fact that mathematical deductions are much more trustworthy than linguistic deductions, because they are less open to variance, because numbers are, more uniquely identifiable, less loaded and more precisely ordered than linguistic statements.

    If infinite sets are not possible except platonically, then we are merely engaging yet again in another conversation about the number of angels that may dance on heads of pins. There is quite an argument going on that Cantor is playing a parlor game, and that between Cantor, Marx, Russell and Freud, is an unconscious conspiracy to replace religious mysticism with logical platonism. (I am one of the people who thinks this.)

    It is necessary for us to make practical use of infinitudes because in practice, in engineering, in physics, distance from any event reduces all effects to a relative constant. Therefore, in practice, while the .99999… does not equal 1 EVER, we can create no measurement that can distinguish between the two. So the platonic concept .9999…. is equal to the measurement 1. Even if the point on any line represented by .9999… never equals 1. EVER, unless we change the meaning of .999999… (Which is really what set theorists do.)

    However, one of the most convenient tricks in any discourse is to confuse the ideal, the platonic, practical, and the real. And unless you know which set of concepts are being used for which purpose its pretty easy to fall into the trap of confusing platonic idealism, with pragmatic platonism, with pragmatic instrumentalism, measurements, and objective reality in real time.

    I suspect my suspicions will be confirmed. And that these silly arguments to logical authority are little more than modern scripture.

    The only platonic test is articulating something in Operational Language open to observation.

    But at least I know why modern scripture is necessary: to preserve moral relativism. (Yes, that’s what I think)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-06 07:31:00 UTC

  • ON THE SHALLOWNESS OF PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT On Maverick Philosopher (blog) Bill

    ON THE SHALLOWNESS OF PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT

    On Maverick Philosopher (blog) Bill Vallicella argues that Philosophical problems are deep by listing the common philosophical questions: “What is (the nature of) X? What is knowledge? What is consciousness? What is the self? What is free will? What is causation? What are properties? What is motion? Time? Existence?” And then he goes on to describe how these questions are ‘deep’ and complex.

    However, notice that the are all stated as ‘is’ questions: metaphysical questions made nonsensical by the magical word ‘is’. Yet, if these questions were asked in operational, scientific, language, they would be stated as “when we use the term knowledge, what examples do we refer to, and what do they have in common?” Or “When we use the term ‘time’, what experience do we refer to?” Or “given that we experience something we call the passage of time, what causes us to possess this experience.”

    Nothing ‘is’. We experience things that we manufacture independent of the physical world. We experience things directly. We experience things through the narrative of others – in many forms. We experience things through instrumentation and measurement. Experiences are changes in state of physical sensations, and of the physical sensation of changes in memory.

    Properties are patterns that increase or decrease inclusion in a concept. A concept is a set of related patterns. EAch of which is a set of related patterns – all of which is represented by sets of physical neural relations. And all of which are created through one of the experiences above. And as such our concepts are limited to those things which we can reduce to some complex set of experiences.

    All of the phenomenon Vallicella lists are trivial concepts before science and impossible concepts before philosophy, because the instrumentation available to the physical sciences is greater than our ability to perceive our inner workings without science.

    The interesting question of consciousness, (Having had many episodes of losing consciousness and regaining it myself) is that it slowly emerges from complex layers of stimuli. But what is obvious to the person experiencing it, is that the part we call ‘me’ seems to coalesce, but once it does, and we are ‘aware’ of the passage of internal time, it ‘feels’ consistent with ‘the experience of being me’ prior to the availability of either external sensations, or memories. The ‘me’ personality feels emotionally consistent regardless of state. (At least in me it does. And that ‘me’ sense has been the same since childhood.) Then as memory starts to come back, we become the complex creatures that we are, because of our memories. Until we are able to process information around us in physical reality.

    This tells us most of what is useful. (And it probably explains why psychedelic drugs appear to help people with psychological disorders obtained from behavior (experiences), but not disorders obtained from physical defects (say, schizophrenia). That’s because the ‘i’ can be separated from the experience of a traumatic memory, long enough to objectively correct the emotional relationships caused by the memory (or memories).

    That diversion aside, the problem plaguing philosophy is the same one that has plagued it since Kant: the desire to find something mystical there, that does not exist, most of the time, by the artful use of language to construct paradoxical puzzles that are computationally difficult for humans to solve because they are framed as problems with a solution, but in fact are nothing more than arbitrary artifacts of imprecise language that remains from our mystical past – largely religious dialog.

    The cure for most philosophical puzzles is the use of operational language.

    Like most puzzles, philosophy’s metaphysical questions consist largely of parlor games created by very bright people who may or may not have been aware of what it was that they were doing. Infinite sets, and all that derives from them included.

    Philosophy is, at least today, useful in understanding the evolution of human thought – primarily so that we do not repeat past errors – and for assisting us in interpreting the findings of the physical and economic sciences.

    That’s it. Science and Economics Won.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-03 17:07:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO REASON THAT VIRTUE, RULE AND CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS CAN’T CONTAIN T

    THERE IS NO REASON THAT VIRTUE, RULE AND CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICS CAN’T CONTAIN THE SAME INFORMATION, AND PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS

    In fact, that’s probably the only measure of any ethical statement.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 04:07:00 UTC

  • FUN COINCIDENCE Coursera has a course, starting monday, in Mathematical Philosop

    FUN COINCIDENCE

    Coursera has a course, starting monday, in Mathematical Philosophy addressing precisely the questions I’m asking – Although, from what I gather, it is an example of everything that is I believe is wrong with the discipline of logic. 🙂 “Know thy enemy” and all that sort of thing. Anyway. I thought that it would be fun to take. And to have whole bunch of people and some young professors to bounce ideas off of. I’m pretty sure I understand the domain now. It only took me two weeks I think. But I’m pretty sure that the infinite set problem is a trivial statement about constructing statements, not a meaningful statement about reality.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 07:28:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN METAPHYSICS (DRAFT / SKETCH: I have to start somewhere) Not “Popper

    PROPERTARIAN METAPHYSICS

    (DRAFT / SKETCH: I have to start somewhere)

    Not “Popperian”. But “Propertarian”. 🙂 I drafted this before writing the reposted-bit that follows. I have to find a way to tie all of this together. So it might take me a few more tries.

    World (1) Monism : That there exists a single objective, physical reality (physicalism). This objective world exists independently of us. Our actions take place in this world. Our process of thinking takes place in this world. However, the experience of thinking does not take place in this world, because experience is our reaction to the changes in state of our perceptions interacting with our memories in real time. The concept of categories and change in state has no meaning without memory to detect that change. The human body exists here. The act of counting and measuring exists here.

    World (2) Cartesian Dualism – Thoughts: The world of our minds that is caused by the change in state of memory by our senses, perceptions, and thoughts. Our minds are fraught with cognitive bias and error, and without testing against the real world (1) the are indistinguishable from dreams. Whatever information exists here exists only as long as the conscious mind of the individual can access and make use of those memories. THE INDIVIDUAL exists here because his memories do. Memories of what PROPERTY an individual OWNS exists here. In fact, we might argue that that is most of what exists here. Our thinking consists of three parts: stimuli whose workings are imperceptible to us, feelings that we react to changes in the state of, or anticipated state of PROPERTY, and the conscious created by changes in he presentation of the world to our senses by a combination of stimuli and memories.

    World (3) Popper’s Third World – External Representation: The world of the conscious construction: artifacts of our minds (formulae, symbols, language, movement of our bodies, writing, formula, arithmetic, mathematics, designs, tools, arts, and complex constructions.) The things that STORE the results of our thoughts. Given the limited ability of our memories to store concrete items, this category of marks, symbols, records, formulae, designs, narratives allows us to remember, compare, calculate, store, retrieve, copy and share ideas with one another. Once information is stored in these symbols, much of it will exist as long as someone exists to make use of it. CONTRACTS exist here.

    World (4) Dastafshan’s Fourth World – Social Consequences: The world of the social construction of reality (unconscious collective concepts, processes and consequences, morals and norms – those things that only exist by social interaction and cooperation – unintended, self-organizing, unconscious rules and ideas that we understand in retrospect but do not intentionally create. ie: ‘gods’ live here. And the principles that determine PROPERTY distributions in any group exist here. 🙂 Without constant use, human action, and interaction between humans, this information will cease to exist.

    Note that Ali Dastafshan’s Fourth World isn’t part of common philosophical discourse. And I am not necessarily framing the fourth world as he would have me do, but perhaps as E.O. Wilson would. But, I think this definition is in terms more likely to be understood by those of us with exposure to analytical philosophy.

    CONTRA METAPHYSICAL LANGUAGE

    Now, how do I convert these categories into operational language?

    Unfortunately, the only efficient way of expressing philosophical ideas as necessities is to structure them as syllogisms as the greeks did, or as riddles – as Lao Tsu was a master of.

    The only way to express scientific statements is through operational language. Because correlation between actions and facts, and therefore between theory and actions that determine facts, is the test of operational language. Without which causal relations are indeterminate.

    The only way to express human actions as necessary is praxeologically. Because the equivalent of logical non contradiction is the test of rational incentives.

    Unfortunately, instead of a necessary test, praxeology was proposed as a system of apodeictic certainty from which deductions could likewise be certain.

    There are two problems with that approach. The fist is the problem that plagues any logical system, which is that such certainty requires completeness. The second is the completeness is impossible. The impossibility of completeness is what causes the apparent paradoxes in mathematics and the first order logic of set theory.

    The problem that causes a separation of mathematics and logic from science in socio-economics occurs largely due to the use of symbolic proxies without accompanying statements that are articulated in praxeological or operational language: there is a very great difference between “given a set … “, and describing how to create a set of anything, including linguistic permutations.

    As for absurdities of logic, assuming a finite universe, or even an actionably finite universe, any category we name thereby defines the remainder. Any set diminishes the remainder. And all contradictions are tautologies.

    For these reasons science has displaced both philosophy and logic. It has not displaced mathematics, because math can be used in the context of natural science and therefore externally constrained by context.

    Likewise the only way to externally bind logic and philosophy to reality is to require use of operational language.

    And the operational language of human action is constructed through praxeological expression. Praxeology exposes all statements to sympathetic testing. Without praxeological expression any statement is platonic: not real.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 07:05:00 UTC

  • Unfortunately, the only efficient way of expressing philosophical ideas as neces

    Unfortunately, the only efficient way of expressing philosophical ideas as necessities is to structure them as syllogisms as the greeks did, or as riddles – as Lao Tsu was a master of.

    The only way to express scientific statements is through operational language. Because correlation between actions and facts, and therefore between theory and actions that determine facts, is the test of operational language. Without which causal relations are indeterminate.

    The only way to express human actions as necessary is praxeologically. Because the equivalent of logical non contradiction is the test of rational incentives.

    Unfortunately, instead of a necessary test, praxeology was proposed as a system of apodeictic certainty from which deductions could likewise be certain.

    There are two problems with that approach. The fist is the problem that plagues any logical system, which is that such certainty requires completeness. The second is the completeness is impossible. The impossibility of completeness is what causes the apparent paradoxes in mathematics and the first order logic of set theory.

    The problem that causes a separation of mathematics and logic from science in socio-economics occurs largely due to the use of symbolic proxies without accompanying statements that are articulated in praxeological or operational language: there is a very great difference between “given a set … “, and describing how to create a set of anything, including linguistic permutations.

    As for absurdities of logic, assuming a finite universe, or even an actionably finite universe, any category we name thereby defines the remainder. Any set diminishes the remainder. And all contradictions are tautologies.

    For these reasons science has displaced both philosophy and logic. It has not displaced mathematics, because math can be used in the context of natural science and therefore externally constrained by context.

    Likewise the only way to externally bind logic and philosophy to reality is to require use of operational language.

    And the operational language of human action is constructed through praxeological expression. Praxeology exposes all statements to sympathetic testing. Without praxeological expression any statement is platonic: not real.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 10:02:00 UTC

  • FOR REASON NOT RECOGNITION I’m going to add this to my Quora signature because i

    http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/CAPTCHA FOR REASON NOT RECOGNITION

    I’m going to add this to my Quora signature because it seems like I use it in every debate:

    “**So, you mean that you don’t understand, and can’t formulate an objection, so you will retreat into your ignorance, because you are operating on belief and not reason. Right?***”

    Quora WAS interesting. But it’s degrading into just another Yahoo Forums / Internet Newsgroups. The useful thing about wikipedia is that the damned syntax prohibits casual editing by idiots.

    We use CAPTCHA for proving you’re human. It’s a trivial Turing Test for recognizing letters and numbers. But to improve debate, we need an equivalent system to test not for RECOGNITION but for REASON.

    I have to think about that a bit. Is there a way to generate random syllogisms that distinguish between sentimental, allegorical, normative (moral), historical, empirical, rational and ratio-empirical?

    Just think of the value that would add to online arguments. 🙂 Or rather, the value it would have in reducing online arguments. 🙂

    See my categorization of arguments here:

    http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#I


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 05:00:00 UTC

  • ANYONE KNOW IF THE ARGUMENT THAT EINSTEIN WAS A NOT THE IDEATOR HAS ANY MERIT? (

    ANYONE KNOW IF THE ARGUMENT THAT EINSTEIN WAS A NOT THE IDEATOR HAS ANY MERIT?

    (I have a legit reason for asking.)

    See this narrative.

    ————-

    “The curious fact about Mr. Einstein is that his early teachers were probably correct: they did not view him as particularly bright. When Einstein (on his second attempt) managed to finally enter the Swiss Polytechnic school in Zurich, the young 17 year old quickly realized he was in way over his head. He was extremely quick to glom on to Mileva Maric, a brilliant Serbian student, who was the only woman studying physics at the Swiss Polytechnic (“ETH”) the entire time Einstein was there. Maric was four years Einstein’s senior. She was a Serb, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, short of stature, had a limp and was extremely bookish. In addition to taking the exact same course-work in college that Einstein took, and living together with him, sharing textbooks, etc., Maric studied on her own for one semester in Germany under Phillipe Lenard, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered the photo-electric effect (which was explained in one of the 1905 papers attributed to Einstein).

    She was also absolutely hated by Einstein’s mother, Pauline. Still, despite his mother’s fierce objections, Einstein stubbornly went ahead and married her. It was during this marriage that Einstein is credited with producing the 1905 papers which made him famous. All this is detailed in the Love Letters. Further, I suggest you read TIME magazine, April 30, 1990, and the essay by Dennis Overbye “Einstein in Love.” This essay refers, without giving attribution, to the work of Dr. Evan Harris Walker and the linguist, Senta Troemmel-Ploetz. If you can find their work anywhere, it is truly an eye-opener.

    Prior to their marriage, Mileva Maric gave birth out of wedlock to Lieserl, the only biological daughter of Albert Einstein. Nobody really knows what happened to this child; there is a mention in one of the letters to her having scarlet fever and it is believed that the child was put up for adoption in Serbia. Albert never breathed a word about her publicly during his life-time (which, personally, I find rather strange).

    Mileva faced the obvious invidious prejudice of being a woman. Remember, in 1900 women couldn’t even vote! Although her grades were comparable to Einstein, Mileva ultimately did not pass her final examinations. It must be noted, however, that at the time she was taking these exams she was late in her pregnancy with Albert’s second child (his son, Hans Albert) and also faced the prejudice of her teachers for being both a Slav and a woman. She was, indeed, the only student in Albert’s class not to graduate, although she did receive a research position with Professor Weber, which later fell through. Of the students who did actually graduate, Einstein had the lowest grade point average.

    But did Albert Einstein—the same man his teachers thought lazy, the same man who after graduating from the ETH could not find a job in physics and was ultimately forced to work for ten years as a lowly patent clerk — really formulate all by himself the great works in 1905 for which he is credited? Or did his wife, who struggled against the obvious prejudice of being a woman studying science during a highly “male chauvanistic” era, and the added prejudice of being a Slav in Switzerland, collaborate with Einstein?

    The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein prove to any open-minded person, that Maric did indeed collaborate on the authorship of Einstein’s famous papers in 1905. Einstein even uses the word “collaboration”. Just a random sample quote from Albert to Mileva (published also in the Love Letters):

    “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion!” Our work??? This is just one isolated quotation. Should you read the entire Love Letters you will find that Albert shares all his physics ideas with her and is extremely interested in her opinion. There are literally dozens of examples. See the copyrighted manuscript by Evan Harris Walker “Ms. Einstein”. There is also a book by Ann Gabor called, “Mrs. Einstein” which essentially parrots Dr. Walker’s work but fails to give him any attribution.

    Senta Troemmel Ploetz, in her excellent paper, “Mileva Maric-Einstein: The Woman who did Einstein’s Mathematics” quotes from a Serbian biography of Maric, that Einstein himself once told his friends that his wife did his math for him. When one realizes the highly mathematical aspect of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, which relies heavily on derivations of the Lorentz transformations, then one can see the importance of having a first-rate mathematician’s help. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein even have a photo-static copy of one of Albert’s college notebooks, in which Mileva has gone through and corrected Albert’s math! Yet the myth of the isolated Einstein working alone, who all by himself, without help from anyone, wrote four brilliant papers on physics in 1905, endures. No two physicists ever had a closer relationship: Mileva and Albert ate together, went to school together, shared ideas together, shared textbooks together, slept together, raised children together, and yet the “Einstein Establishment” refuses to acknowledge her as a collaborator in any way whatsoever.

    Naturally, the original manuscript for the Special Relativity paper is missing. It was lost during Einstein’s lifetime. Yet, Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physicist is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, “Einstein-Marity” (Marity being the Hungarianized version of Maric’; at that time Serbia was under the dominion of Austro-Hungarian empire). Joffe died in 1961. See op cited TIME (April 30, 1990).

    Moreover, when Albert admitted adultery and divorced Mileva in 1919, he promised that in the event he should win the Nobel Prize all the money – not part of the money but all the money – would go to Mileva. According to the Einstein biography, “Subtle is the Lord” by Abram Pais, Einstein kept his promise. When he received the Nobel Prize money in 1922 (he was awarded the prize for the year 1921; the award was announced and he received the money in 1922) Albert did indeed give Mileva all the money from the Nobel Prize. Why all the money?

    Then I must also mention Olinto De Pretto. Albert Einstein was quite fluent in Italian. According to the already cited Pais biography, when Einstein graduated from high school in Aarau he was required to take exams in both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum score of 6, Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! Of course, Einstein had lived in Italy during his youth, and Einstein’s father is buried in Milan. Further, during the very same “anno mirabilis” of 1905, when Einstein published his famous four physics papers in the Annalen der Physik, he also published in the very same Annalen der Physik two reviews of articles written in Italian by Italian physicists. Again, these were reviews of articles written in Italian and were published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905, which shows that Einstein was reading rather deeply the Italian literature in physics at the time. Moreover, Michele Besso, the only person credited in the famous E=mc^2 paper of 1905, was originally from the Veneto region of Italy; his native tongue was Italian. Also, in order for Einstein to gain Swiss citizenship (a requirement for him to work in the Berne patent office since that was a government job) it could only help him if he could show proficiency in Italian, which, along with German and French, is one of the three official languages of Switzerland. Finally, there are still extant postcards written by Einstein in Italian as well as living Italians who spoke to Einstein in his later years who attest to his fluency. There is no doubt that Einstein spoke Italian well.

    Why do I emphasize Einstein’s fluency in Italian? Because another native of the Veneto region, an industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, had published an article in which De Pretto gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published in 1903 and published again in 1904; preceding Einstein’s 1905 “E=mc^2” paper by at least a year-and-a-half. Dr. Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, in his book, “Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu’ famosa del mondo” (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has published De Pretto’s article in full. In the article, De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. That is a kilogram of any material there is within an extraordinary explosion of energy. De Pretto articulated the formula quite well and realized its significance. This formula, of course, would later be the theoretical basis for the atomic bomb. Throughout all of the famous papers on 1905, Einstein gives no sources or citations. The only credit given to anyone is a brief mention of his friend Michele Besso. Why the lack of citation of any source material?

    Dr. Bartocci has made a link between Michele Besso and Olinto De Pretto; however, nobody can absolutely prove that Einstein saw De Pretto’s article. Yet based on the Besso link with the De Pretto article, and also that Einstein was well aware of other groundbreaking work by Italian physicists (having read deeply the Italian physics literature), it would seem difficult to deny that Einstein was aware of the De Pretto article. Indeed, when Einstein did publish his famous article in 1905 wherein he gave a variation of the famed “E=mc^2” formula, he titled this “discovery” in the form of a question. Perhaps he was not quite sure of its significance or perhaps he wanted the title in the form of a question in order to later attribute it to someone else should the formula prove incorrect.

    What is absolutely indisputable is that the formula was published, not once but twice, in the Italian physics literature. Its authorship should rightly be credited to the industrialist, Olinto De Pretto.

    Recently published letters written by Einstein (see The Collected Papers of A. Einstein) reveal him to be far less than a saintly figure in his personal life. His first wife, Mileva Maric, for whom he had originally professed such great love, he treated cruelly toward the end of the marriage, even calling her “uncommonly ugly”. He admitted in a deposition during divorce proceedings (28 December 1918) that he had carried on an adulterous relationship with one of his cousins, whom he later married. During this second marriage, Einstein had numerous affairs, even – apparently — including an affair with a Russian spy! And again, Einstein never breathed a word about having fathered a daughter with Maric.

    The “Einstein myth” has become so ingrained in popular thought that many of the current generations will be loath to part with it. It does make a terrific story: a student whom his teachers thought would not amount to anything, a sloppy dresser who abhored wearing socks or even neatly combing his hair, should later be revealed to be the greatest scientist of all time. A solitary genius who without any significant help from anybody, re-arranged the universe. Like most fine stories that sound too good to be true, the “Einstein myth” is really too good to be true. The Nobel Prize winning chemist Linus Pauling once said (on a completely unrelated topic) that it takes a generation before people will accept a truly new idea. Current generations, weaned on the “Einstein myth” will not bear to part with it. Women and men of newer generations, not weaned on the myth, willing to investigate the evidence for themselves, and not wedded to any ideology or point of view, will approach the issue of Einstein’s authorship of the Special Theory of Relativity and the formula “E=mc^2″ with fresh eyes. I ask only that the reader keep an open mind.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 06:28:00 UTC

  • MORE ON WRITING THEORY : AN ARGUMENT IS A THEORY AND WRITING IT IS A TEST I gues

    MORE ON WRITING THEORY : AN ARGUMENT IS A THEORY AND WRITING IT IS A TEST

    I guess, I should put it this way: I don’t assume I know anything. Anything at all. I just construct arguments to see how well I can make them. They’re like recipes. I bake a hundred variations of the cake. Maybe one of them rises enough to be worthy of frosting. When I run out of ways to write a recipe and the recipe produces a cake all the time, I consider it the best recipe I can make for a cake.

    1) Write to learn what you do not know. (observe and record)

    2) Write to test what you know. (conduct experiments)

    3) Write what you know you know. (articulate hypothesis)

    4) Publish what you have written (subject it to testing by peer review)

    That’s about it. That’s science. I don’t assume I know anything except that which is false. And libraries are largely populated by that which is false. The problem is determining what’s left over that still might be true. 🙂

    If each book held one idea, I’m pretty sure that a library of 1500 books (per both Murray and Adler) would accomplish the task.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-25 11:51:00 UTC