On 7 December Stephen wrote re Wikipedia entries [snip]: >mostly I want my encyclopedia to refrain from judgement, >just tell me what's happenin', baby.
Personally, I don't want "my" encyclopedia to refrain from judgement to the degree that it cites alleged facts that are completely false, or provides citations to people who provide such 'facts' in terms that imply they are uncontentious. >Then I can investigate for myself and make up my own mind. As Stephen found out (giving me numerous citations to follow up, which turned out to be useful for my knowledge of the contentions going the rounds!), such an investigation doesn't necessarily provide the documented facts that enable one to arrive at a reasonably authoritative judgement. Sorry to go through some of this stuff again, but I'd like to ask Stephen how much of the following he found out by following up the citations in Wikepedia. And if *Stephen* didn't find out this information, how many readers of the Wikipedia entry would have got anywhere near it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Maric 1. One item suggests that a brief, rather naive, report from Maric to Einstein of one lecture given by Lenard in Heidelberg in 1897 was relevant to Einstein's paper 1905 paper on Brownian motion. This is scientific nonsense of the highest order. (Maric's attendance on the course given by Lenard in 1897-98 has also been presented as evidence she made contributions to his 1905 photoelectric paper. When the 'evidence' is as woolly (or, as in this case, devoid of substantive content) as in this "controversy", just about anything can be claimed - and has been!) 2. "After they married, Mileva sacrificed her professional goals, helping Einstein's career instead." Mileva didn't have any professional goals by then in the sense implied, i.e., of being a professional physicist. She had failed her Diploma exam twice, and her aspiration had been reduced to considering applying for a post as a librarian at the Zurich Polytechnic (1900), or as a high school teacher (1901). (Her main aspiration by then was to marry Einstein. To a friend in 1900: "Albert is soon to leave here, and is taking with him half my life." To Einstein in 1901: "How beautiful the world will look when I'm your little wife, you'll see.") 3. "Mileva entered Einstein's life in a crucial period of his scientific achievements." That's the trouble with this Maric entry. Abysmal nonsense like this might well be taken seriously by readers who know no better. The pair met at the start of their four-year course at the Zurich Polytechnic, when Einstein was 17 years old. 4. The view about "the extent [sic] of Mileva's contribution" of John Stachel, "keeper of Albert's letters" (i.e., General Editor of Einstein's Collected Papers), is 'balanced' against the views of Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, and a couple of others'. No links are provided, so as it stands it looks like one authoritative view against another (with possibly Stachel having a vested interest in defending Einstein). But a perusal of Walker's claims reveal him to be someone with little respect for the facts, and with a propensity to present material in a tendentiously distorted fashion. (See, for example, his two letters to "Physics Today" in February 1989: http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Walker_Stachel.pdf ) There is nothing on the Wikipedia website, nor in the material one can find by Googling Walker + Maric, that enables the lay reader to appreciate that the assertions of Walker (who *is*, after all, a physicist) are grossly misleading (and, in my view, his presentation of alleged 'facts' is intellectually contemptible). He is evidently riding an eccentric hobby-horse, but how could the layperson reading the Wikipedia citations know this? (Walker also holds the 2001 Outstanding Contribution Award from the Parapsychological Association. And, as Stephen reported to me off-list, Walker has his own "Walker Cancer Research Institute" which announces "A cure is imminant [sic]". However the Charity Navigator in 2005 only gave his Institute 1 star out of 4 for its overall rating, with a zero rating for Organizational Efficiency. In 1999 the same organization reported that the Walker Institute "spends 83% of its donations on fund raising".) 5. Then there is the assertion that "Biographer Abram Joffe claims to have seen an original manuscript for the theory of relativity which was signed, "Einstein-Maric", when the original document shows that Joffe made no such claim. The only substantive references are: (i) Highfield and Carter (1993); good on the facts about the alleged "collaboration" (Highfield is a knowledgeable science correspondent, Sunday Telegraph and BBC) - but how many Wikipedia readers are likely to seek it out? (ii) PBS "Einstein's Wife" link. (This website must hold some kind of record for the greatest number of false or tendentiously misleading assertions.) (iii) Mileva Maric burial record, dated 1904, by one Donald Greyfield. Its accuracy is typified by the first two words: "Serbian Mathematician". (One out of two for that one!) Again: "Mileva participated in her husband's scientific work as acknowledged in letters written by him. She is now deemed a co-creator of Einstein's Theory of Relativity." (Nonsense on all counts.) The level of disinterestedness of the writer of the "burial record" is illustrated by his saying: "[Mileva] met and married Albert Einstein entering into an unhappy marriage, mistreated by her eccentric husband who prized her as chattel." In fact in the early years of her marriage, as her letters to friends indicate, she was very happy. It went sour after about six years. All the blame for their difficulties is heaped upon Einstein - but who is privy to what goes on within a marriage? They were clearly temperamentally very different, Mileva being rather withdrawn and Einstein easy-going and gregarious. It is evident from her letters that by the time they were married Mileva no longer had the same enthusiasm for physics she once had, which must have disappointed Einstein, who in the first flush of his love for her held fond hopes of a scientific partnership that was not to be. There's no doubt that Einstein increasingly neglected Mileva, but is that unusual for someone deeply involved in creative work (let alone work of genius that was to transform physics) that requires long periods of intense concentration? No one is going to argue that Einstein's behaviour should not be criticized, but does he deserve quite the opprobrium that has been heaped upon him? There's no doubt that some of his later reports to friends about Mileva, as well as his behaviour, were reprehensible. But, with respect to the beginnings of the breakdown of their relationship, sometimes what goes wrong within a marriage is neither one, nor the other's 'fault', it's a consequence of circumstances and temperamental incompatibility. The point of my going over some of this material is to point out that even Stephen's Googling did not enable him to ascertain most of the facts cited above. And that even after his research he still felt that the Wikipedia entry (minus my later addition) was balanced, with the implication that Walker's views should be given some weight. In a case like this, "Then I can investigate for myself and make up my own mind" is easier said than done, at least, if the conclusion is to be arrived at on the basis of documentable facts and not confidently-asserted contentions that the layperson is not in a position to appreciate are highly dubious, if not downright false. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Message text written by "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" >Subject: Re: Demeaning Mileva Maric From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:41:02 -0500 Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[email protected]> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On 7 Dec 2005 at 11:16, Allen Esterson wrote: > After Stephen's description of the Wikipedia entry on Einstein/Maric as > "balanced", can we dispense with the use of this ambiguous word in such > contexts in future. -:) > (Sorry, Stephen!) > Good thing you said you were sorry. But after the verbal licking I took from Allen on this issue, I'd better clarify what I meant. I agree with Allen that science is not a democracy, and the best position is rarely halfway between two extremes. As Einstein allegedly said when confronted with a tract by 100 concerned Nazi scientists declaring he was wrong, "If I were wrong, one would be enough". But an encyclopedia isn't science either. What I want out of an encylclopedia is _information_, and that includes all of the current views on a particular issue, misguided though they may be, as long as a substantial number are taking them seriously. I like a _little_ guidance, common-sense, and interpretation, but mostly I want my encyclopedia to refrain from judgement, just tell me what's happenin', baby. Then I can investigate for myself and make up my own mind. That's what I meant by "balanced", and I think Wikipedia does a pretty good job of it. BTW, that tract by Nazi scientists is real, but I've tried and failed to verify Einstein's reply. I suspect he never said it. A pity, because I really like it. Stephen< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
