• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Einstein have problems with Scientific Scepticism?

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Everyone has an opinion. But can personal opinion be of use in Scientific Endeavour?
In the best case scenario, which was perhaps during Albert Einstein's live times, the journals
really read the articles of the authors trying to demonstrate them their fatal mistake.
Then there could be a productive discussion between three authorities: the reviewers, the editor, and the
author (is better for everyone to be informed, as each of the parties can read the article).

Besides logic, the scientific community always uses feelings (in my opinion), but feelings can
be positive or negative, as there are two options in the realm of feelings:
scepticism or trust. I follow my ``guiding star'' in a way that I must be convinced (by me or others)
if I have made a mistake. This mistake must be found, and I must be convinced
that it is a mistake. This principle is my guiding star. Some journals have rejected
some of my papers without even trying to convince me of having done mistakes.

There is a historical case about Einstein. After his publication of the logical
debunkment of Sir Newton's absolute space and absolute time, too many scientists
were not accepting his debunkment. Therefore, the unexplainable feeling of
scepticism has severely slowed down the ``train'' of science for as long as
17 years (and the greatest Theory of Relativity has not been renowned by a
Nobel Prize)! The fact, that Einstein had problems in Scientific Community is
given in the historic video:

Described suffering of Prof. Einstein indicates, that "scientific scepticism'' is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be conducted in positive way rather than negative. How exactly? If the mind of the reader would see that the logic of the
paper seems not to be violated, the mind would trust this conclusion and
accept the paper. Humankind shows a terrible conflict between feelings and
mind. Muting the mind in favour of emotions is simply called
madness (in my opinion), but conflict between mind and feeling of beauty is discussed
in this video:
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Einstein's revolutionary ideas were accepted by the science community with remarkable speed. He was appointed professor by the age of 30.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Everyone has an opinion. But can personal opinion be of use in Scientific Endeavour?
Depends on what the opinion is based on. As a sense of direction, fine; but if the opinion is not based on any objectively-derived evidence, then it's really not worth that much-- or at least shouldn't be.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, Einstein was wrong about the Steady-State Theory that he strongly believed in.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Einstein's revolutionary ideas were accepted by the science community with remarkable speed. He was appointed professor by the age of 30.

In physics we kinda learn a fun quick bio focused on the patent clerk time, just cause some professor tells a part or somethin'. Since a lot of people just don't even know that --

many just don't even know Einstein could not get a position at that time, and and had to work as a patent clerk and that's when he was making his first huge breakthroughs, without having a position in physics

It's better to just include it, instead of omitting it, in a quick nutshell, even the briefest.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Everyone has an opinion. But can personal opinion be of use in Scientific Endeavour?
In the best case scenario, which was perhaps during Albert Einstein's live times, the journals
really read the articles of the authors trying to demonstrate them their fatal mistake.
Then there could be a productive discussion between three authorities: the reviewers, the editor, and the
author (is better for everyone to be informed, as each of the parties can read the article).

Besides logic, the scientific community always uses feelings (in my opinion), but feelings can
be positive or negative, as there are two options in the realm of feelings:
scepticism or trust. I follow my ``guiding star'' in a way that I must be convinced (by me or others)
if I have made a mistake. This mistake must be found, and I must be convinced
that it is a mistake. This principle is my guiding star. Some journals have rejected
some of my papers without even trying to convince me of having done mistakes.

There is a historical case about Einstein. After his publication of the logical
debunkment of Sir Newton's absolute space and absolute time, too many scientists
were not accepting his debunkment. Therefore, the unexplainable feeling of
scepticism has severely slowed down the ``train'' of science for as long as
17 years (and the greatest Theory of Relativity has not been renowned by a
Nobel Prize)! The fact, that Einstein had problems in Scientific Community is
given in the historic video:

But if the mind of the reader would see that the logic of the
paper seems not to be violated, the mind would trust this conclusion and
accept the paper. Humankind shows a terrible conflict between feelings and
mind. Muting the mind in favour of emotions is simply called
madness (in my opinion), but conflict between mind and feeling of beauty is discussed
in this video:

I'd say no, Einstein did not have some huge problem with too much skepticism about his theories. There was some, but it seems more the normal inertia of old ideas.

The reason given for why Einstein could not get a position in physics after graduating, and had to work as a patent clerk for a time, was just that he had very average grades, and did not appear as if all that great a student, by the simple measures.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I'd say no, Einstein did not have some huge problem with too much skepticism about his theories. There was some, but it seems more the normal inertia of old ideas.
the greatest Theory of Relativity has not been renowned by a Nobel Prize
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
In physics we kinda learn a fun quick bio focused on the patent clerk time, just cause some professor tells a part or somethin'. Since a lot of people just don't even know that --

many just don't even know Einstein could not get a position at that time, and and had to work as a patent clerk and that's when he was making his first huge breakthroughs, without having a position in physics

It's better to just include it, instead of omitting it, in a quick nutshell, even the briefest.
I think the problem is the opposite, actually. People have heard something about the patent time and this plays into the standard romantic cliche of the impoverished and misunderstood genius without recognition. In the case of Einstein, it's hogwash.

By the way, Einstein was a patent examiner, not a clerk. A patent examiner is a high-grade professional job, requiring a science or technology degree and knowledge of patent law, that assesses applications to see if they are novel and meet the criteria for being granted a patent. This requires considerable skill in understanding patent descriptions and being able to compare them with the "prior art". (I trained as a patent agent myself after university, and had to deal with the examiners at the patent office. They were mostly pretty sharp people.) So this was not a Mickey Mouse job he had, though it was the entry level grade in the patent office hierarchy, as he was only just out of university.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I think the problem is the opposite, actually. People have heard something about the patent time and this plays into the standard romantic cliche of the impoverished and misunderstood genius without recognition. In the case of Einstein, it's hogwash.

By the way, Einstein was a patent examiner, not a clerk. A patent examiner is a high-grade professional job, requiring a science or technology degree and knowledge of patent law, that assesses applications to see if they are novel and meet the criteria for being granted a patent. This requires considerable skill in understanding patent descriptions and being able to compare them with the "prior art". (I trained as a patent agent myself after university, and had to deal with the examiners at the patent office. They were mostly pretty sharp people.) So this was not a Mickey Mouse job he had, though it was the entry level grade in the patent office hierarchy, as he was only just out of university.

No doubt!

Yet, as is simply known, he could not get a physics position he wanted after graduating. Just a salient and interesting fact. No need to protest that. It's interesting.\

Fun too , though. heh heh

After graduating in 1900, Einstein spent almost two frustrating years searching for a teaching post. He acquired Swiss citizenship in February 1901,[51] but for medical reasons was not conscripted. With the help of Marcel Grossmann's father, he secured a job in Bern at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office,[52][53] as an assistant examiner – level III.[54][55]
Albert Einstein - Wikipedia
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
What's wrong with that. Any scientist who is not a sceptic isn't worthy of being called a scientist.
I argue in the thread above, that scepticism is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be positive rather than negative.

I repeat:

Described suffering of Prof. Einstein indicates, that "scientific scepticism'' is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be conducted in positive way rather than negative. How exactly?
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
I argue in the thread above, that scepticism is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be positive rather than negative.

I repeat:

Described suffering of Prof. Einstein indicates, that "scientific scepticism'' is nothing more than a negative emotion. But science could be conducted in positive way rather than negative. How exactly?

You can repeat it as often as you like, but that doesn't make it so. You have provided no evidence for your assertion that "scepticism is nothing more than a negative emotion". Perhaps you need to consult a good dictionary.
 
Top