Science...Truth...Reality...?

[et pet]

   https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

                 "Einstein's Philosophy of Science"

   "  1. Introduction: Was Einstein an Epistemological “Opportunist”?

Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible” into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61–573).^[1] Here is what Einstein offered in reply:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)

Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reg Prescott]

49 minutes ago, et pet said:

Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career."

 

In another thread started by myself (you may have noticed) one of the contributors claims: "Science is not the quest for reality" and  "It is a fact that physics uses models that are never intended to be representations of reality."

 

Do you feel these assertions are consistent with the claim: "He [Einstein] expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality"? 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Do you feel these assertions are consistent with the claim: "He [Einstein] expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality"? 

No, I don't believe it can be interpreted that way. Einstein also said "Imagination is more important then knowledge" I'm sure though he did not actually mean it that way...rather he was saying that Imagination is an important contribution to science and is up there with knowledge.

Einstein was also human....Einstein was also wrong at times. Einstein never shirked his responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way. Einstein also died in 1955 and was a product of the  early 20th century. 

 

Albert also once described relativity as analogous to putting your hand on a hot stove for a few seconds will seem like an hour, while sitting with a hot blonde for an hour, will seem like a minute....or at least words to that effect, just in case anyone wants to  hold me to exactly what he said.

And Reg, as someone who fills his threads with name dropping and misinterpreted quotes, let me name drop at least three physicists that were all to various degrees critical of philosophy...Feynman, Krauss and Susskind.

 I look to the following.....

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/05/01/151752815/blackboard-rumble-why-are-physicists-hating-on-philosophy-and-

What is learning for if it doesn't lead to wisdom?

That's a question worth asking in light of an ongoing cosmological street fight being waged (remarkably) in broad media daylight. The rumble tumbled into the public eye with Lawrence Krauss' new book A Universe From Nothing. But before the scathing New York Times review and an acerbic rebuttal in The Atlantic, this physics vs. philosophy smack-down was brewing in academic back alleys for decades. At stake is a critical question living deep inside the heart of modern foundational physics: What are the limits of science?

The battle began when David Albert — a well-known philosopher of science with an expertise in quantum mechanics — savaged Krauss' book in the Times (I touched on Albert's response in relation to science and religion when it first appeared). With Richard Dawkins providing an overheated afterward comparing the book to The Origin of The Species, there was no doubt an atheist/theist slugfest was in the offing.

But the bulk of Albert's review had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic philosophy. It was the very title of Krauss' book that Albert picked apart. Can physics explain how a Universe emerges from nothing? Not surprisingly, everything depends on which "nothing" you are talking about. That is where the knives came out.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In my opinion of course, after reading the above and the many debates that are taking place re science and philosophy, it appears that the Iders, YECs and other forms of supernatural supporters, are simply trying to ward of the death knell for religion and the why, why, why, why philosophy that seems to support it. Let me again link to one of my favourite short videos by one of the greatest......

 

That actually says it all. The same of course applies to Krauss' definition of the quantum foam as the "nothing" from whence the universe arose.  That at least as far as I am concerned, is far more believable and logical then some mythical magical spaghetti monster that has simply existed for eternity and creates everything at his whim. 

Philosophy is the foundation of physics and some philosophical questions have lead to many great moments in science. It seems to me that it is the individual philosopher that should be questioned at times...reminds me of a great quote....

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

Edited October 26, 2018 by beecee

[et pet]

4 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

In another thread started by myself (you may have noticed) one of the contributors claims: "Science is not the quest for reality" and  "It is a fact that physics uses models that are never intended to be representations of reality."

 

Do you feel these assertions are consistent with the claim: "He [Einstein] expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality"? 

   Why do different assertions and claims made by different asserters and claimants need to be consistent. 

   Going by the Quoted 'claims' that you Posted, why would you expect any consistency at all between any specious 'claims' or 'assertions' by 'the contributor' and the Genius of Albert Einstein?

   Now, at the risk of getting this Thread back On-Topic, did you actually read any of the Linked Article : "Einstein's Philosophy of Science" @ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ?

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by et pet

[beecee]

2 hours ago, et pet said:

   Why do different assertions and claims made by different asserters and claimants need to be consistent. 

   Going by the Quoted 'claims' that you Posted, why would you expect any consistency at all between any specious 'claims' or 'assertions' by 'the contributor' and the Genius of Albert Einstein? 

Assertions and claims, at least scientific assertions and claims, are in general a product of professional peer review, with the general consensus of opinions, [based on evidence and the interpretation of] by the greater majority. All scientific theories need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak. And as I have told Reg on occasions, every discipline in any field, will not have 100% support and/or agreement....mavericks are a fact of life, and certainly on the odd occasion, a maverick may arise that invalidates the mainstream thinking. But just as certainly, he will also need to abide by the scientific methodology.

Quote

 Now, at the risk of getting this Thread back On-Topic, did you actually read any of the Linked Article : "Einstein's Philosophy of Science" @ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ?

I can only repeat,  Einstein was also human....Einstein was also wrong at times. Einstein never shirked his responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way. Einstein also died in 1955 and was a product of the  early 20th century. 

Albert also once described relativity as analogous to putting your hand on a hot stove for a few seconds will seem like an hour, while sitting with a hot blonde for an hour, will seem like a minute....or at least words to that effect,

[et pet]

     Please?

      On-Topic, Please?

        I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

        I did not invite, nor do I believe that there is any need to suffer another sermon about any "gauntlet"

        I did NOT start this Thread hear about about how many occasions anyone has repeatedly preached Kindergarten Science Sermons to anyone else.

        So, Please, Pretty Please with a Cherry on Top?

           On-Topic, Please?

             How about a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein"?

 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, et pet said:

     Please?

      On-Topic, Please?

        I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

        I did not invite, nor do I believe that there is any need to suffer another sermon about any "gauntlet"

        I did NOT start this Thread hear about about how many occasions anyone has repeatedly preached Kindergarten Science Sermons to anyone else.

        So, Please, Pretty Please with a Cherry on Top?

           On-Topic, Please?   

 

I believe I have given some insight into Einstein and any inferences re him..... And I have read a fair bit of your link......not much to say actually, except again it appears to be one man's thoughts on the great man, remembering as great as he was, he was also able to admit his errors of judgement and was a humble man to boot. His quotes, both in your article, and the ones I gave, do not distract from his qualities, nor from the fact he is a man of the early 20th century.

Quote

 How about a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein"?

It's a thread you started, so I presume you have thoughts on it? 

 

Thanks for the cherries! 

[beecee]

Re read your article et pet, and as I said it seems just one man's opinion/interpretation of Einstein and his philosophical beliefs....some seem contradictory. Nothing there though over throws the fact that science neither positively seeks a reality or truth, [if such a thing really exists] or that it is absolutely necessary....rather as I have said many times, if scientists accidentley are confronted with it, all well and good.

The important thing again, is that Einstein was fallible and a product of the very early 20th century, and philosophy in and of itself, while most important as support for the science foundation and scientific methodology, is just engaging in thought between philosophers, and as is apparent of late, we have had some criticism from professional quarters on philosophy being taken too far and presumably has had its day.

Looking forward to your thoughts and again interesting article. 

 

Here are some answers re questions on science, truth and reality........not saying I agree  with all of them......

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth

A scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result.

"Scientific “truth” is simply knowledge that is compiled bit by bit, in the form of theories or “models” to give us meaningful explanations of our universe, including our small chunk of living earth. Although there may be setbacks and corrections along the way, science is nonetheless responsible for the enormous material progress we have seen over the last few centuries..."

Scientific truth depends on realities. Reasoning, religion, emotions, and preference have nothing to do with science. Just actualities matter. Checked, reproducible actualities are the bedrock of logical truth. The realities are utilized to develop speculations which depict the point by point relations among expansive quantities of certainties and their starting point from basic roots. Every component of a hypothesis relates to some piece of nature and, in this sense, logical speculations portray nature.

 

Scientific truth is a state of minimum discrepancy between theoretical prediction and observed reality.

Never absolute, scientific truth improves as theories evolve and/or measurement accuracy increases to improve the correlation between prediction and observation

[et pet]

 

Please?

      On-Topic, Please?

        I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

        I did not invite, nor do I believe that there is any need to suffer continued Kindergarten Proselytizing.

        I did NOT start this Thread to listen to repeated Kindergarten Proselytizing.

   Quoted from the Link, which, by the way, has nothing at all to do with " Einsteins Philosophy of Science " or "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". 

   https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth 

     by James Garry "Amina, Do you really think that you are improving the discussion with this proselytizing?"

   https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth 

      Proselytizing is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PART OF and has NO PLACE IN ANY thoughtful discussion.

        So, Please, Pretty Please with a Cherry on Top?

           On-Topic, Please?

             How about a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein"?

 

 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, et pet said:

 

Please?

      On-Topic, Please?

        I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

!

Moderator Note

I'm afraid that "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X" is too vague. You need to outline what it is you wish to discuss, and post/describe the material from the link in sufficient detail so that can happen. (see rule 2.7)

 

[et pet]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

I'm afraid that "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X" is too vague. You need to outline what it is you wish to discuss, and post/describe the material from the link in sufficient detail so that can happen. (see rule 2.7)

 

   

   "I'm afraid that "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X" is too vague."

       Why must you misquote me, swansont?

        I did not state : "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X".

       If you read the OP, you will see that I clearly  stated : I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

   "You need to outline what it is you wish to discuss"

        Again, if you read the OP, you will see that I clearly  stated : I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

        That is a fairly clear "outline" of "what it is" I  "wish to discuss".

        I was trying to encourage a thoughtful discussion on Albert Einsteins Philosophy of Science, as gleaned by the close study of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.

   "and post/describe the material from the link in sufficient detail so that can happen."

       From the OP :  " I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)"

       And : "Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career. " - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ 

  Material that I Posted, from the Link which sufficiently Details and Describes both a tiny part of Albert Einsteins Philosophy of Science and also an even tinier part of his collected Papers.

Edited October 26, 2018 by et pet

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

Why must you misquote me, swansont?

Wow. Don't you think he was talking about the "thoughtful discussion" part being too vague to declare beecees posts NOT on-topic? Why must you be so willfully obtuse, et pet? 

[et pet]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Wow. Don't you think he was talking about the "thoughtful discussion" part being too vague to declare beecees posts NOT on-topic? Why must you be so willfully obtuse, et pet? 

   No, Phi for All, I did NOT THINK that swansont "was talking about the "thoughtful discussion" part being too vague to declare beecees posts NOT on-topic? 

   I made no assumptions or presumptions about what swansont Posted.

   I simply read what he Posted - I added nothing to what he Posted - I read nothing into what he Posted - I did not misquote anything he Posted.

   If that was indeed what swansont "was talking about", he could have stated as much.

   By not including the 6-simple words " to declare beecees post NOT on topic", it left his statement somewhat...vague?

   "Willfully Obtuse" ?!?!

   The only thing that I could find on being "Willfully Obtuse" : "What this means is that no amount of facts or reasons, no matter how clearly, calmly and patiently you lay them out, is going to change the minds of the wilfully obtuse. They are too brainwashed. They are too far gone." https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&biw=1068&bih=574&ei=c0rTW__GNqOmjwSVtZXYBA&q=what+does+willfully+obtuse+mean&oq=willfully+obtuse+mean%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i7i30.66952.66952..72928...0.0..0.69.69.1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.povnwkg736I 

  Phi for All, I have clearly, calmly, patiently - and also repeatedly - stated my reasons for starting this Thread. 

  I am completely open to any discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein". 

   Is there any chance, Phi for All, that your Posted "Why must you be so willfully obtuse, et pet? " might be construed by some as an example of a "Logical Fallacy" or "Ad Hominem" ? : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem 

   "Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

 

[beecee]

42 minutes ago, et pet said:

   Phi for All, I have clearly, calmly, patiently - and also repeatedly - stated my reasons for starting this Thread.  

Well then as I clearly, calmly, and patiently asked before, why don't you start the ball rolling and give us your thoughts on the article. 

[et pet]

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

Well then as I clearly, calmly, and patiently asked before, why don't you start the ball rolling and give us your thoughts on the article. 

    FROM THE OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ 

   "Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu  

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by et pet

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, et pet said:

    FROM THE OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ 

   "Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

 

Yep, thanks....your thoughts?

[et pet]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Yep, thanks....your thoughts?

   Again : FROM THE OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ 

   "Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein": http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, et pet said:

   Again : FROM THE OP : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ 

   "Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

Also of interest might be "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein": http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

? OK, let's ask you a question/s in line with the title of this thread...Do you agree that a scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result irrespective of reality? And do you believe that Einstein would disagree with this? And finally isn't it possible that Einstein's philosophy is not necessarily more conducive to scientific knowledge today then it was in his era....I mean that since Einstein was also human, was also wrong at times, and never shirked his scientific responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way, isn't it possible his philosophy was wanting? What are your thoughts?

I found this and some interesting extracts.....

https://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/305

extract 1: "Einstein generalizes the Galilean relativity principle to include electro-magnetic phenomena; he postulates the velocity of light in vacuum as an upper speed limit on all phenomena. He uses the Lorentz transformations for the calculation of spatial and temporal measurements in the transition from one reference frame to another. There is much to be said for the view that Einstein’s Special theory of relativity completes classical physics, especially the work of James C. Maxwell. [Holton 2000] Einstein himself did not see his theory as a ‘revolutionary act’. But Einstein’s work did introduce a philosophical revolution in our fundamental notions".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I agree with what I believe that is saying...ie, It was actually the incredible scientific discovery by the great man, that led or leads to new philosophy, or as the extract notes, a philosophical revolution.                                                               :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

extract 2 and 3:  "Hans Reichenbach characterized Einstein as a philosopher by implication but also speaks of the ‘philosophical consequences’ of Einstein’s work".... "It may be more appropriate to characterize Einstein’s philosophical innovations as consequences of his scientific work"                        ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

What I read into those two interesting extracts is again, that Einstein was primarily a scientist, but the implications of his ground breaking work led to a philosophical revolution. Einstein then obviously, was more or less obliged to be philosophical in line with his work and the new philosophy that followed the science.

In line with et pet's excellent science, truth and reality thread, and its implications with Einstein's philosophy of science, I think this may also be complimentary and again an extract from the above link.....                                     ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 "I prefer therefore to speak of the philosophical consequences of Einstein’s work. In order to appreciate what is meant by philosophical consequences, we should distinguish them from the deductive consequences of physical theories. A deductive consequence follows from the principles and internal logic of the theory. It is a deductive consequence of the premises of STR that reference frames do not share a universal time axis. A philosophical consequence of a physical theory concerns its conceptual features. Certain conceptual positions are compatible or incompatible with the theory but they are not directly testable and are subject to interpretations. For instance a notion of absolute time is incompatible with the theory of relativity. But physicists and philosophers have argued, alternatively, that the theory of relativity can be made compatible with a static or a dynamic view of time. The philosophical consequences of the theory of relativity extend far beyond the familiar reshaping of the notions of space and time. What made Einstein a great physicist was his ability to question unquestioned assumptions in the tradition of physical theorizing. What made him an even greater physicist was his ability to recognize the limits of his own work. This talent led him from the Special to the General theory of relativity and beyond to attempts to construct a unified field theory. What made him a decent philosopher was his willingness to pursue the philosophical consequences of his physical discoveries, e.g., regarding the physico-philosophical notions"

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

My conclusion is that Einstein was unquestionably a great scientist and by default a pretty good philosopher. He also had many desired qualities that I have already mentioned, and by all reports, had at least one weird habit.....I have read articles that he would often not wear socks and I recall that was supported with a photo of him when he moved to the USA at  Princeton, New Jersey, after the rise of Hitler.

Edited October 26, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

5 hours ago, et pet said:

   

   "I'm afraid that "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X" is too vague."

       Why must you misquote me, swansont?

Since I was using the quote marks to separate my commentary from that on which I was commenting, it was not meant to be an exact quote. It was meant more as a paraphrase or general description. (That's also shown by my use of X as a placeholder.)

In what way is my statement inaccurate? Are you not asking for discussion based on material that is not posted in the thread? That as my point, and is reflected in rule 2.7

5 hours ago, et pet said:

        I did not state : "can we have a thoughtful discussion on X".

       If you read the OP, you will see that I clearly  stated : I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

   "You need to outline what it is you wish to discuss"

        Again, if you read the OP, you will see that I clearly  stated : I started this Thread to encourage a thoughtful discussion about the Linked Article : " Einsteins Philosophy of Science ", and "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein".

        That is a fairly clear "outline" of "what it is" I  "wish to discuss".

That's the first entry in the outline. Not the outline itself.

 

5 hours ago, et pet said:

   "and post/describe the material from the link in sufficient detail so that can happen."

       From the OP :  " I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)"

       And : "Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career. " - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ 

  Material that I Posted, from the Link which sufficiently Details and Describes both a tiny part of Albert Einsteins Philosophy of Science and also an even tinier part of his collected Papers.

What kind of discussion were you expecting, based solely on those two entries (i.e. assuming nobody clicked any links)?

[et pet]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

? OK, let's ask you a question/s in line with the title of this thread...Do you agree that a scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result irrespective of reality?

    If you want to discuss "a scientific truth", would you please start your own thread to do that, please?

   To start you off though I did a quick google and found this : https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth/1  , "a year ago"   

    "A scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result." by Fadel Djamel, Université Mohamed Chérif Messaadia de Souk-Ahrashttps://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth/1

   It appears that Fadel Djamel, from the Université Mohamed Chérif Messaadia de Souk-Ahras might share your view on the matter,  literally Word for Word, to a limited extent, anyways. So there are probably more than just the two of you that might find that discussion enjoyable.

   Again, If you want to discuss "a scientific truth", would you please start your own thread to do that, Please?

[beecee]

26 minutes ago, et pet said:

    If you want to discuss "a scientific truth", would you please start your own thread to do that, please? 

In line with the title of this thread, and in line with Einstein's philosophy as per your article, I again ask that same question. If you are unable to answer that's OK.

Quote

 

 To start you off though I did a quick google and found this : https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth/1  , "a year ago"   

    "A scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result." by Fadel Djamel, Université Mohamed Chérif Messaadia de Souk-Ahrashttps://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_scientific_truth/1

   It appears that Fadel Djamel, from the Université Mohamed Chérif Messaadia de Souk-Ahras might share your view on the matter,  literally Word for Word, to a limited extent, anyways. So there are probably more than just the two of you that might find that discussion enjoyable.

 

Yep actually word for word as I listed previously. You have no comment? So again, what are your thoughts on your article?

 

 

Quote

 Again, If you want to discuss "a scientific truth", would you please start your own thread to do that, Please?

I see the aspect of scientific truth as relevant to the thread and article. But hey! again, you have no thoughts on your own thread title and/or link?

I repeat.......

2 hours ago, beecee said:

? OK, let's ask you a question/s in line with the title of this thread...Do you agree that a scientific truth is a truth which is the object of a repeated experimental demonstration which leads to the same result irrespective of reality? And do you believe that Einstein would disagree with this? And finally isn't it possible that Einstein's philosophy is not necessarily more conducive to scientific knowledge today then it was in his era....I mean that since Einstein was also human, was also wrong at times, and never shirked his scientific responsibility and example in admitting he was wrong when the evidence pointed that way, isn't it possible his philosophy was wanting? What are your thoughts?

 

21 hours ago, et pet said:

So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering

Hi again et pet......From your own quote in the OP, Einstein speaks of being independent from prejudices. Einstein being the man he was, humble and able to admit to, as well as making errors, also may have been wrong in the following statement, again from your OP link...."and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality"...particularly since it has been shown conclusively, that scientific theories don't necessarily seek truth or reality as its goal. 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by beecee

[et pet]

     

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Hi again et pet......From your own quote in the OP, Einstein speaks of being independent from prejudices. Einstein being the man he was, humble and able to admit to, as well as making errors, also may have been wrong in the following statement, again from your OP link...."and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality"...particularly since it has been shown conclusively, that scientific theories don't necessarily seek truth or reality as its goal. 

 

    If you want to start a Thread to argue that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was, then go right ahead and start that Thread, Please?

   My OP contained a Link to a heavily researched and very insightful article Titled "Einsteins Philosophy of Science"    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ; and a Link to "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

   As I stated in the OP : Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

   I honestly thought that some on this Forum might enjoy reading the heavily researched and very insightful article based on Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications.

And I linked the "The Einstein Papers Project " so that members may actually be able to have ONE LINK access to all of Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications.

   Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth" that you constantly attempt to Steer or Hijack this Thread towards for whatever reason.

   Please? 

   I cannot and will not participate in any discussion about whether or not Albert Einstein was wrong about anything - especially any discussion  with anyone arguing that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was!

   If you cannot simply enjoy the Links in the manner that I proffered them, then Please just start your own Thread to Argue.

   Please?

   

Edited October 26, 2018 by et pet

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, et pet said:

     

    If you want to start a Thread to argue that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was, then go right ahead and start that Thread, Please?

   My OP contained a Link to a heavily researched and very insightful article Titled "Einsteins Philosophy of Science"    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/ ; and a Link to "The Einstein Papers Project   The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" : http://www.einstein.caltech.edu 

   As I stated in the OP : Anyone who is truly interested in the Philosophy and Science of Albert Einstein should enjoy reading the Linked content.  

   I honestly thought that some on this Forum might enjoy reading the heavily researched and very insightful article based on Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications.

And I linked the "The Einstein Papers Project " so that members may actually be able to have ONE LINK access to all of Albert Einsteins personal writings and professional publications.

   Nowhere in the OP did I make any reference to "a scientific truth" that you constantly attempt to Steer or Hijack this Thread towards for whatever reason.

   Please?     

I believe this thread suffices...of course if you disagree, then you can refer to the mods..I'll certainly stand by their rulings as you also will. The title of your thread says it all, and while your article is excellent, it is also opinionated and the views therein, in my opinion, can be discussed.

 

Quote

 

 I cannot and will not participate in any discussion about whether or not Albert Einstein was wrong about anything - especially any discussion  with anyone arguing that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was!

   If you cannot simply enjoy the Links in the manner that I proffered them, then Please just start your own Thread to Argue.

   Please?

 

I'm not arguing et pet, and if you prefer to back away from any relevant content that's your business, I'm simply offering my interpretations and discussing the enjoyment I did receive from your excellent article. As per usual, and as others have inferred elsewhere with your apparent exclusion/s of relevant matter, you are reading too much into what others are trying to convey to you. Perhaps as mentioned in your article, you are unable to see the woods for the trees. 

Again, the title of this thread, is "Science, Truth and Reality"

Edited October 26, 2018 by beecee

[et pet]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

I believe this thread suffices...of course if you disagree, then you can refer to the mods..I'll certainly stand by their rulings as you also will. The title of your thread says it all, and while your article is excellent, it is also opinionated and the views therein, in my opinion, can be discussed.

 

I'm not arguing et pet, and if you prefer to back away from any relevant content that's your business, I'm simply offering my interpretations and discussing the enjoyment I did receive from your excellent article. As per usual, and as others have inferred elsewhere with your apparent exclusion/s of relevant matter, you are reading too much into what others are trying to convey to you. Perhaps as mentioned in your article, you are unable to see the woods for the trees. 

Again, the title of this thread, is "Science, Truth and Reality"

      Again, I cannot and will not participate in any discussion about whether or not Albert Einstein was wrong about anything - especially any discussion  with anyone arguing that Albert Einstein may have been wrong about about what his own personal Philosophy of Science was!

      And how can you argue with anyone about the Title of this Thread?

      It is in a fairly good sized Font at the  TOP OF THIS PAGE!

      The Title of this Thread IS NOT "Science, Truth and Reality".

      I titled the OP.

     The title of this Thread is : Science...Truth...Reality...?

     

Edited October 26, 2018 by et pet

[beecee]

 

1 hour ago, et pet said:

     

      The Title of this Thread IS NOT "Science, Truth and Reality".

      I titled the OP.

     The title of this Thread is : Science...Truth...Reality...?

     

   Now that is humorous! 

 from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#PriTheTheDis we have..........

7. Conclusion: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Physicist

"Einstein's influence on twentieth-century philosophy of science is comparable to his influence on twentieth-century physics. What made that possible? One explanation looks to the institutional and disciplinary history of theoretical physics and the philosophy of science. Each was, in its own domain, a new mode of thought in the latter nineteenth century, and each finally began to secure for itself a solid institutional basis in the early twentieth century. In a curious way, the two movements helped one another. Philosophers of science helped to legitimate theoretical physics by locating the significant cognitive content of science in its theories. Theoretical physicists helped to legitimate the philosophy of science by providing for analysis a subject matter that was radically reshaping our understanding of nature and the place of humankind within it".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I find nothing really curious about the fact that in the early days, the philosophy of science, helped legitimate theoretical physics, although I find the use of the word "legitimate" rather pretentious in that case, and that physics in turn has helped legitimate philosophy and creating new opportunity for philosophers to ply their trade as I mentioned previously. This in my opinion is what Laurence Krauss is alluding to in his criticism of philosophy and its usefulness...while being the foundation of physics, it is in many ways limited in any new application. As a wise man once said, Physics/science is what we know, philosophy is what we don't know, generally speaking of course.

Again from the link.....

"An obvious question is whether or not the early cultivation of a philosophical habit of mind made a difference in the way Einstein and his contemporaries approached physics. As indicated by his November 1944 letter to Robert Thorton quoted at the beginning of this article, Einstein thought that it did".

Well probably yes I agree, but I'm sure if the great man was alive today, he may revise what he actually said, and probably correct other interpretations of what he said.

Edited October 27, 2018 by beecee