Einstein not that smart

Einstein suggests that if he knew beforehand that his work would contribute to the building of the atomic bomb he would have been a clockmaker.

Now how can someone who is so brilliant not see that anything man creates can be used for good or bad and is most likely used for bad to exploit the world to benefit one group versus another?

Did he really think that man was inherently good?

Although there's some evidence that he stole the basics of his theory from his wife Mileva, he did have some unique gifts. (despite claims that he plagiarized, there's no proof of this, though there is some evidence that they collaborated, and the first paper was published with both their names.)

Those gifts included the ability to do thought experiments and see through to the heart of things that, at the time, were not able to be easily conceptualized, unless you were a physicist, and not uncommonly, many of them had problems until the Michelson-Morley experiment.

This is similar to what Stephen Hawking can do, and we'd hardly call him stupid, though he was possibly proven wrong on aspects of his black hole theory.

The idea that time could be relative and that the frame of the observer matters, even in the 50s and 60s was so 'bizarre' and out there that it wasn't taught in secondary school, despite the fact that Einstein and Max Planck published it in the early 1900s (1905 and 1908). Relativity

Thus I think it's important to distinguish between Savant and Stupid. You might have a mathematical genius that can rapidly compute and recite prime numbers, but he might be stupid in most other subjects. Why cast aspersions? It's irrelevant, imo.

In the case you mention we have 'futurists' and similar experts tasked with dealing with consequences and leave the theoretical physics to those with special abilities in their field.

Besides, I think E was being sarcastic when he said that.






[edit on 7-3-2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Badge01
Why cast aspersions? It's irrelevant, imo.

In the case you mention we have 'futurists' and similar experts tasked with dealing with consequences and leave the theoretical physics to those with special abilities in their field.

Besides, I think E was being sarcastic when he said that.




[edit on 7-3-2008 by Badge01]

Because what is considered intelligent varies according to your values. In one village, the fisherman might be the mainstay of the community, where in another culture that man may be just some ordinary guy working for a paycheck.

It's the human nature that is the problem. So when you take the ability (Einsteins gift) to think outside the box and apply it and then the same man realizes his folly it makes you wonder why he wasn't pursuing something else in the first place?

Was he truly being sarcastic? I wish I knew. That would be useful in interpreting his intentions.

reply to post by ben91069


Well, perhaps 'sarcastic' was the wrong word. Maybe self-deprecating?

If you created something that you thought would benefit mankind but discovered that it aided in developing a weapon, you might find yourself saying 'oh, I wish I was never born', or 'I wish I had stuck to farming, or carpentry'.

You don't really mean it, but are using hyperbole to try and explain the depth of your despair.

As far as intelligence, gifts and other things, that's what makes a society function better than an individual. People are able to pursue singular interests and become experts in a niche technology or study.

Society supports them by employing them to teach or give lectures and they can concentrate on their passion or their obsession.

True it can sometimes lead to having a certain type of 'blinders', but it's a negative consequence of intense focus, sometimes.

I think your post is valid, don't get me wrong. Scientists need to be aware of consequences, and they also need to try to trust that if they come up with ways of generating, say, extreme energy or power that there is enough of a postive side that it's worth it to continue.

Sometimes they're wrong, but when you have an obsession or passion, it's hard to rein it in and they should be forgiven.

Just to add some quirkiness. When I read a biograph about Enstein I thought it was interesting that as a kid he was nothing more than a C study.

Stephen Hawkins didn't really take his early schooling to serious either. I guess my point is that great minds need to wander a bit before then can be great.

reply to post by testrat


That is most likely a myth about Einstein. According to one expert:

"Young Albert was actually a good student..." said Robin Groesbeck, manager of exhibit coordination at the Field Museum.

Anyway,

Did you know that Watson and Crick stole their DNA Helix from Rosie Franklin? She was the first person who was able to get an X-ray crystallographic image of the molecule that helped confirm the DNA was a double helix. Somehow, Watson got a look at her data.

Then, he rushed to publish and stole it, many people think. Even Franklin's collaborator got a share of the Nobel Prize.

Rosalind Franklin, Dark Lady of DNA



[edit on 7-3-2008 by Badge01]

This also reminds me of Nobel himself. The whole reason we have the award is from a man who perfected nitroglycerin for industrial use, then society takes it and uses it for destroying humanity.

Why doesn't these great minds see this?

Originally posted by ben91069
This also reminds me of Nobel himself. The whole reason we have the award is from a man who perfected nitroglycerin for industrial use, then society takes it and uses it for destroying humanity.

Why doesn't these great minds see this?

THough I get your drift, that's probably not strictly true.

Nitroglycerine is used in strip mining and in cardiac angina patients.

Trinitrotoluene (TNT) was used more for high explosives in WWII.

It was developed in about 1860.

Liquid Nitro was widely banned and this lead to the development of dynamite. Dynamite is used more for quarrying and road building than for killing people, specificall.

So even if Sobrero had not developed it in 1846 (as you note, Nobel just invented the best process), other things would have taken its place.

In fact by inventing dynamite, Nobel actually made it safer to handle (though that might have lead to misuse).

I guess it ends up that it's hard to know whom to blame wrt things that get turned into a medium for War.

If you recall the injuries were quite horrific during the Civil War - this lead to the use of jacketed bullets. Better? Maybe.

Should people stop working on Rocket Propellants, because the Shuttle Astronauts were killed? Probably not, although propellant enable us to deliver missiles.

There are probably worse things that are invented that are misused, like DDT which have greater overall negative effects than explosives and atomic energy.

After all, without that, how would we have split the Beer molecule??

So the question remains then. If you have knowledge, in this case it is the power of the atom, and it can be used for good or bad and you are the person to show the world this knowledge, do you do it knowing that it will be used to both destroy and create? I think in most cases with pushing new theories, the ego of the scientist gets in the way before they think about the possibility that the end result could unleash much suffering on the earth.

reply to post by ben91069


Though this may be true, few things are black and white, or a direct effect. It may be impossible to foresee.

The guys who invented DDT thought they were helping build the Panama Canal. They ended up killing a lot of innocent wildlife and poisoning some people due to over use.

When I learned how to make match head rockets, I envisioned they'd be used for peaceful purposes. Who know that it would lead to the 'Personal Bazooka' which would be good for scaring the neighbor kid?

When I discovered Ammonium Triiodide, I thought it would be good for peaceful purposes. I didnt' realize I'd scare the Janitorial staff and cause me to almost be thrown out of the dorm?