🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Aug28.133107.8402@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:


>I admit to not having studied the life of Einstein in detail. What I 
>know about it was tangential information picked up during the 
>numerous courses I've taken on SR and GR, and reading Einstein's
>little book on understanding relativity, plus a documentary on PBS.

      If you suspected that Einstein's ideas might not be correct, you'd
feel differently about this, because you would wonder how his ideas were
arrived at. Conversely, if you were required to understand the historical
context in which these ideas arose, instead of merely being presented with
the finished product as the truth, you might not be so certain his ideas
were arrived at in a valid way, and you might have more appreciation for
the assumptions which were made, and are now ignored.

      This, IMO, is a grave mistake on the part of society in structuring
education. Naturally, when a school of thought arises, its adherents wish
to teach it and spread it. This leads to a desire not to introduce questions
into the cirriculum which might create doubt on the part of students. This
in turn leads to either ignoring, or selectively presenting a version of
history. Whenever a dogma is promulgated, this is part of the process.


>I might add that this is another thing that separates philosophical
>study from scientific study. We don't worry about reading the
>original works, or dwelling on the lives and miscellaneous writings
>of the originators of physical theory. For some reason that I don't
>understand, philosphers still devote much time to original 
>works from Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc, etc, 
>rather than merely focusing on the concepts themselves, divorced
>from their proponents (and their proponents generally inferior
>original presentations).

      You have identified far too closely with your social function,
and ignored your own personal search for the truth. Your concept of man's
struggle to understand the universe does not seem broad enough, IMO, for
you to contribute creatively in any but the most narrow technical endeavor.
You should read more history of science -- you may find it much more
interesting than you imagine.


>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


      John E. Snodgrass
      -----------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com