From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:32:20 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


 rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

    [My original posting re: Einstein's beliefs about QM deleted]

>Well, given that you're confusing two different kinds of "belief",
>plenty more than you seem to think.  Belief in a hypothesis strong
>enough to make someone work at testing it is essential for people to
>carry out science.  However, blind faith is quite another matter -- a
>scientist must be prepared to reject a theory that fails tests.
>Furthermore, you've picked a bad example if you were trying to make a
>point, as every experiment to test QM has verified it, and some of those
>experiments have been rather severe tests, so Einstein's "belief" now
>appears to be incorrect.
>
>There is >>NOTHING<< wrong with making a starting hypothesis and working
>from that point.  From a scientific point of view, there is absolutely
>nothing wrong with hypothesizing a god, even!  "Science" does not take
>the "strong atheistic" (my quotes) position that you ascribe to it;
>science is a way of procedure (it's more akin to halacha than to
>belief).  Einstein hypothesized that the universe is deterministic, as
>opposed to the probabilistic universe of quantum mechanics.  However,
>his belief could be tested by testing quantum theory, and thus far
>quantum theory has passed every test with flying colors.
>
>Finally, I might point out that the fact that Einstein rejected QM did
>not prevent others from working on it.  Greatest scientist of the 20th
>century or not, this was merely his personal belief, and was not taken
>as more than that by anyone else.
>--


I don't think they are different.  Ultimately one has to make a judgement,
and that is done alone by oneself.  Not all faith is blind, and not all
scientific knowledge is clear-eyed.  I suspect that a majority of people
who accept the currently fashionable scientific hypotheses - such as
the Big Bang or neo-Darwinism - do so as blindly, relying on the authority
of their superiors as do believers in religious faith.

The debate over whether knowledge is possible or only an ever evolving
collection of models is all man can attain to continues. But in the
end, one must decide, over and over again.  I am persuaded of the helio-
centric model of the solar system.  I sleep peacefully at night because
I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I don't know that the sun
will rise tomorrow, but I believe it will. Therefore I go to sleep.

I would also say that most religious believers would agree with you that
no one should be prevented from exploring a hypothesis. The scientific
establishment can be just as oppressive of "scientifically incorrect"
hypotheses as any religious authority and has the most varied means to
enforce its doctrines.

But I don't want to get into a Scientific Establishment Flame War, and
this is getting away from Einstein and soon will be off the topic of
the newsgroup. I just wanted to point out that Einstein wisely understood 
that science also requires a foundation in faith and lives and breathes
every day on that foundation.  Not every believer in science understands 
this.  Even the theory of knowledge on which the scientist bases his
thinking process must, after due consideration, be accepted yea or nay,
implicitly as soon as he starts to form his first hypothesis.

There is such a thing as blind science. There are such things as seeing 
faith and faith that leads to knowledge.

Cordially,
Gerry Palo
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish