Einstein's Relativity vs. Secularist's Relativism

Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

[...]

Einstein would have been, and later was, appalled at the conflation of

relativity with relativism. As noted, he had considered calling his theory

"invariance," because the physical laws of combined spacetime, according to

his theory, were indeed invariant rather than relative. Moreover, he was

not a relativist in his own morality or even in his taste. "The word

relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial of, or

doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values," the philosopher

Isaiah Berlin later lamented. "This was the opposite of what Einstein

believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were

expressed in all he said and did."

~ Walter Isaacson, _Einstein: His Life and Universe_, 2007, quoting Isaiah

Berlin, "Einstein and Israel", Holton, Gerald and Yehuda Elkana, eds. 1997,

_Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives_.

--

(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or

visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and

NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 150 language translators!

Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Alohacyberian wrote:

> Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

> Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

> in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

> only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

> [...]

> Einstein would have been, and later was, appalled at the conflation of

> relativity with relativism.

This never happened. So, yes, Einstein would have been appalled. You

should be ashamed for being suckered.

humble monk wrote:

> Alohacyberian wrote:

> > Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

> > Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

> > in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

> > only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

> > [...]

> > Einstein would have been, and later was, appalled at the conflation of

> > relativity with relativism.

> This never happened. So, yes, Einstein would have been appalled. You

> should be ashamed for being suckered.

Sorry, it happens regularly. I've had several college-educated people

try to feed me the nonsense Einstein proved that everything is

relative.

In fact it doesn't stop there. The book, _Fashionable Nonsense_ by

Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont documents a lot of the ways the

fashionable left misuses modern physics. Quite amusing if you

understand the science they are twisting.

hal lillywhite wrote:

-snip-

> In fact it doesn't stop there. The book, _Fashionable Nonsense_ by

> Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont documents a lot of the ways the

> fashionable left misuses modern physics. Quite amusing if you

> understand the science they are twisting.

And the fashionable right doesn't?

Didja hear the one 'bout the speed of light changing?

Peace and justice,

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:26:39 GMT, "Alohacyberian"

<alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:

>Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

>Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

>in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

>only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

The main thinker in the "relativism" phenomena was not

Einstein but Karl Marx. The latter's "dialectical

materialism" was the basis for much of Einstein's babbling.

Bernard Curry

>[...]e

>Einstein would have been, and later was, appalled at the conflation of

>relativity with relativism. As noted, he had considered calling his theory

>"invariance," because the physical laws of combined spacetime, according to

>his theory, were indeed invariant rather than relative. Moreover, he was

>not a relativist in his own morality or even in his taste. "The word

>relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial of, or

>doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values," the philosopher

>Isaiah Berlin later lamented. "This was the opposite of what Einstein

>believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were

>expressed in all he said and did."

> ~ Walter Isaacson, _Einstein: His Life and Universe_, 2007, quoting Isaiah

>Berlin, "Einstein and Israel", Holton, Gerald and Yehuda Elkana, eds. 1997,

>_Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives_.

Bernard Curry wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:26:39 GMT, "Alohacyberian"

> <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:

>

>

>>Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

>>Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

>>in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

>>only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

> The main thinker in the "relativism" phenomena was not

> Einstein but Karl Marx. The latter's "dialectical

> materialism" was the basis for much of Einstein's babbling.

Just when you think people can't get any more stupid....

Peace and justice,

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> > In fact it doesn't stop there. The book, _Fashionable Nonsense_ by

> > Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont documents a lot of the ways the

> > fashionable left misuses modern physics. Quite amusing if you

> > understand the science they are twisting.

> And the fashionable right doesn't?

I'm not aware that there is any "fashionable right" in the same sense

as there exists a fashionable left which Sokal and Bricmont take to

task in the book. Certainly I'm unaware of any right leaning journals

on the order of the one that published Sokal's nonsensical paper which

he wrote to prove they would not publish it. It was his

disappointment with that publication that triggered the writing of the

book.

Of course there are some on the right who do misuse science but they

seem to do it in a different way, more by picking their data to say

something like evolution is wrong instead of misinterpreting it as

some leftists do with relativity.

> Didja hear the one 'bout the speed of light changing?

Yup. Just might be true though of course there is still a lot of

controversy about it. It is taken seriously enough that physicists

want more data and analysis. I suppose some could use that to claim

that the universe is not as old as current belief, but they would

still be a long way from a creation in 7 days of 24 hours each.

In any case, Gibbon noted that while the moral values must be

maintained to keep a republic, every effort to restore them once lost,

has failed. I dont see any evidence to the contrary since Gibbon.

Whether we like it or not, the Christian family values so many think

this nation was founded on have been lost to such a degree that they

will not be restored.

This is not to say that another republic cannot be formed on the

superior moral values of Stoicism or some other cosmology. I spoke

with a young woman today who had abandoned her Christian family values

in large part because she didnt see any young men responsible enuf to

form a family with. She is now looking in alternative cosmologies and

social models; which was why she had time to speak with me.

Neither of us are responsible for the fact that because of

outsourcing, downsizing, and market manipulation, young men dont make

enuf money any more to support a family, or present the financial

future to maintain one once lost. And the sheer number of single moms

attest to that loss on a national scale.

History is full of examples of young women who were sold, traded, or

kidnapped, who then found they had to adapt the moral values of

whatever group they found themselves with. They have therefore evolved

with a considerable degree of social adaptability. But now, in this

case, and I expect many others, young women are finding themselves in

a position to examine different values and choose for themselves as

they see fit, rather than having some men decide that for them.

Whereas before they had the Mosaic law, Christian dogma, or whatever

foisted upon them, now they are in the relativist position of being

able to pick and choose values from wherever they find them. While

these include secular values, they are not limited to them. There are

other cosmologies, among which the concept of the Great Earth Mother

is drawing a rapidly increasing following. Besides the obvious appeal

this would have to young women is the simple psychological fact that

this cosmology leads to peace.

This fact is easy to understand when you consider the problem a

demagogue has trying to rile up a mob or an army by claiming that he

speaks in HER name.

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> > The main thinker in the "relativism" phenomena was not

> > Einstein but Karl Marx. The latter's "dialectical

> > materialism" was the basis for much of Einstein's babbling.

> Just when you think people can't get any more stupid....

Most likely the guy is a severe antisemite. Einstein is a real

problem for such people. They want to believe that nothing good can

come from any Jew. The fact that the greatest physicist of the 20th

century happened to be Jewish is a real problem for them and they have

to do some real gyrations to deal with him.

"Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message

news:13kcoeeg70o7434@corp.supernews.com...

> "Bernard Curry" <bccom@ispwest.com> wrote in message

>> The main thinker in the "relativism" phenomena was not

>> Einstein but Karl Marx. The latter's "dialectical

>> materialism" was the basis for much of Einstein's babbling.

>

> Dude, I think you just won the Internet. What does he get, Vanna?

A $50-off voucher for the home-school of his choice, Pat.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:48:33 -0800, Bill Shatzer

<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> mumbled:

>Didja hear the one 'bout the speed of light changing?

Do you have a life you old sourpuss?

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:47:35 -0800, Bill Shatzer

<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> mumbled:

>Just when you think people can't get any more stupid....

Shatzie shows up...

"Bernard Curry" <bccom@ispwest.com> wrote in message

> The main thinker in the "relativism" phenomena was not

> Einstein but Karl Marx. The latter's "dialectical

> materialism" was the basis for much of Einstein's babbling.

>

> Bernard Curry

Dude, I think you just won the Internet. What does he get, Vanna?

Curt

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:33:46 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> mumbled:

>Dude, I think you just won the Internet.

You are so mind-numbingly STUPID!

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:19:10 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"

<bucky@kaufman.net> mumbled:

> Patriotism has nothing to do with the Redneck Minutemen.

> They're just terrorists.

> Minutemen on the border are made up of ex Vietnam quitters.

> May GOD BLESS and keep the Wetback.

> Now, getoff your ass and go kill a Wetback

> That way we'll all enjoy a double blessing - one less illegal alien

> and one

> thrown away piece of white trash.

> One Mexican with a pistol can do more to secure the border than all of

> those old men together can.

> I want the Mexicans to feel free to come by and cut my lawn.

> Everyone has different reasons for posting here.

> I didn't come here to follow; I came here to lead.

> When the country goes bankrupt, we Socialists will finally take over!

> Nothing like crippling debt to make someone see the light of

> Socialism!

> My insecurities lie outside the field of Social Science.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:19:10 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"

<bucky@kaufman.net> mumbled:

> Patriotism has nothing to do with the Redneck Minutemen.

> They're just terrorists.

> Minutemen on the border are made up of ex Vietnam quitters.

> May GOD BLESS and keep the Wetback.

> Now, getoff your ass and go kill a Wetback

> That way we'll all enjoy a double blessing - one less illegal alien

> and one

> thrown away piece of white trash.

> One Mexican with a pistol can do more to secure the border than all of

> those old men together can.

> I want the Mexicans to feel free to come by and cut my lawn.

> Everyone has different reasons for posting here.

> I didn't come here to follow; I came here to lead.

> When the country goes bankrupt, we Socialists will finally take over!

> Nothing like crippling debt to make someone see the light of

> Socialism!

> My insecurities lie outside the field of Social Science.

hal lillywhite wrote:

>

> Bill Shatzer wrote:

>>>In fact it doesn't stop there. The book, _Fashionable Nonsense_ by

>>>Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont documents a lot of the ways the

>>>fashionable left misuses modern physics. Quite amusing if you

>>>understand the science they are twisting.

>>And the fashionable right doesn't?

> I'm not aware that there is any "fashionable right" in the same sense

> as there exists a fashionable left which Sokal and Bricmont take to

> task in the book.

Of course not - they define it out.

"Well, yes, there's a right but it's not -fashionable-."

> Certainly I'm unaware of any right leaning journals

> on the order of the one that published Sokal's nonsensical paper which

> he wrote to prove they would not publish it. It was his

> disappointment with that publication that triggered the writing of the

> book.

Right wing journals (and the like) publish things every bit as silly

every day.

One need only peruse WND to glean numerous examples.

> Of course there are some on the right who do misuse science but they

> seem to do it in a different way, more by picking their data to say

> something like evolution is wrong instead of misinterpreting it as

> some leftists do with relativity.

That particular confusion seems endemic among those of the far right

wing persuation and not anything I've seen so-called "leftists" advocating.

>>Didja hear the one 'bout the speed of light changing?

> Yup. Just might be true though of course there is still a lot of

> controversy about it.

There is NO chance that it's true. At least in the way the right-wing

creationist nutcases use it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_e2d1.pdf

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_quickref.html

You'll note that you find darn few creationist nutcases among the

so-called left wing.

> It is taken seriously enough that physicists

> want more data and analysis. I suppose some could use that to claim

> that the universe is not as old as current belief,

Some could and, indeed, many do.

Few of them are so-called leftists however.

> but they would

> still be a long way from a creation in 7 days of 24 hours each.

Which doesn't stop 'em from claiming that it be so.

Indeed, it doesn't stop 'em from claiming that it be so despite a total

lack of any actual evidence to support their claims and a universe of

evidence to the contrary.

Peace and justice,

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> hal lillywhite wrote:

>

> -snip-

>

>> In fact it doesn't stop there. The book, _Fashionable Nonsense_ by

>> Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont documents a lot of the ways the

>> fashionable left misuses modern physics. Quite amusing if you

>> understand the science they are twisting.

>

> And the fashionable right doesn't?

>

> Didja hear the one 'bout the speed of light changing?

>

> Peace and justice,

>

But the left, fashionable or not, doesn't misuse modern physics.

What is the fashionable left anyway? The fashionable left. If anyone

misuses modern physics, it is the unfashionable right, building their

ballistic missile defense systems and nuclear bombs and star wars

particle beams.

On Nov 20, 1:26 am, "Alohacyberian" <alohacyber...@att.net> wrote:

> Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

> Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

> in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

> only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

> [...]

> Einstein would have been, and later was, appalled at the conflation of

> relativity with relativism. As noted, he had considered calling his theory

> "invariance," because the physical laws of combined spacetime, according to

> his theory, were indeed invariant rather than relative. Moreover, he was

> not a relativist in his own morality or even in his taste. "The word

> relativity has been widely misinterpreted as relativism, the denial of, or

> doubt about, the objectivity of truth or moral values," the philosopher

> Isaiah Berlin later lamented. "This was the opposite of what Einstein

> believed. He was a man of simple and absolute moral convictions, which were

> expressed in all he said and did."

> ~ Walter Isaacson, _Einstein: His Life and Universe_, 2007, quoting Isaiah

> Berlin, "Einstein and Israel", Holton, Gerald and Yehuda Elkana, eds. 1997,

> _Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives_.

> --

> (-:alohacyberian:-) At my website view over 3,600 live cameras or

> visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI, and

> NBA, the White House, Academy Awards, 150 language translators!

> Visit Hawaii, Israel and more at: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Regardless of the connection to Einstein, the underlying point here is

that there are no absolutes when it comes to politics, art and

morality. These are human inventions.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:40:27 -0800, Bill Shatzer

<bshatzerNO@comcast.net> mumbled:

>You'll note that you find darn few creationist nutcases among the

>so-called left wing.

Pervasive atheistic bent to blame?

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:14:02 +0100, humble monk

<on.the.road@mandalay.com> mumbled:

>But the left, fashionable or not, doesn't misuse modern physics.

WTF are you still doing here froggie?

Fuck off and GO HOME!

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> > Certainly I'm unaware of any right leaning journals

> > on the order of the one that published Sokal's nonsensical paper which

> > he wrote to prove they would not publish it. It was his

> > disappointment with that publication that triggered the writing of the

> > book.

> Right wing journals (and the like) publish things every bit as silly

> every day.

> One need only peruse WND to glean numerous examples.

WND hardly even claims to be a scholarly journal. "Social Text" does.

> > Of course there are some on the right who do misuse science but they

> > seem to do it in a different way, more by picking their data to say

> > something like evolution is wrong instead of misinterpreting it as

> > some leftists do with relativity.

> That particular confusion seems endemic among those of the far right

> wing persuation and not anything I've seen so-called "leftists" advocating.

As I say, the type of science misuse seems different on the right and

left.

> >>Didja hear the one 'bout the speed of light changing?

> > Yup. Just might be true though of course there is still a lot of

> > controversy about it.

> There is NO chance that it's true. At least in the way the right-wing

> creationist nutcases use it.

Not the way some misuse it, but there is quite a reasonable chance

that more scientific versions are true. Just google it and you will

find that there are plenty of scientists who take it as a serioius

possibility (though a long way from proven).

Scientific ignorance and twisting is not limited to any political

belief.

humble monk wrote:

> But the left, fashionable or not, doesn't misuse modern physics.

??? Nonsense! I gave a reference to a book documenting many such

abuses. The book, by the way, was written by a couple of leftists who

have enough integrity to not like misuse of science even in support of

their own cause.

> What is the fashionable left anyway? The fashionable left. If anyone

> misuses modern physics, it is the unfashionable right, building their

> ballistic missile defense systems and nuclear bombs and star wars

> particle beams.

And just whose administration started the Manhatten Project? And

whose popped the only two nukes ever used in war?

"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message

news:Rpt1j.24758$Pv2.22341@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

> "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote in message

> news:13kcoeeg70o7434@corp.supernews.com...

> > "Bernard Curry" <bccom@ispwest.com> wrote in message

>

> >> The main thinker in the "relativism" phenomena was not

> >> Einstein but Karl Marx. The latter's "dialectical

> >> materialism" was the basis for much of Einstein's babbling.

> >

> > Dude, I think you just won the Internet. What does he get, Vanna?

>

> A $50-off voucher for the home-school of his choice, Pat.

AND... a 1976 Javelin, on blocks, for his front yard!

Curt

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:41:05 -0800 (PST),

goofindoo@gmail.com wrote:

Snipped

>On Nov 20, 1:26 am, "Alohacyberian" <alohacyber...@att.net> wrote:

>> Indirectly, driven by popular misunderstandings rather than a fealty to

>> Einstein's thinking, _relativity_ became associated with a new _relativism_

>> in morality and art and politics. There was less faith on absolutes, not

>> only of time and space, but also of truth and morality.

>Regardless of the connection to Einstein, the underlying point here is

>that there are no absolutes when it comes to politics, art and

>morality. These are human inventions.

Yes and no. In the material world without our minds there

are no absolutes. Example: Within the nature of mankind or

"man" as sexual beings, there is neither absolutely

masculine nor absolutely feminine man. We classify men in

the two classes for convenience.

Many men then expect all men to be sexually either, or, but

not in between. Defactorily, most men are between the

absolutes and a great many are in the median where qualities

of both sexes predominate.

The same thing can be said of men as social beings as either

authoritarian or libertarian. But we find a distinctly

different situation. Most men are so close to the

authoritarian absolute that they can be presumed absolute

authoritarians.

Impelled by their social instincts, men form societies that

can be classified as either authoritarian or libertarian.

Because most men are authoritarian, most societies are

authoritarian. Moreover, there is constant movement in all

societies toward that absolute. Authoritarian doctrines for

socializing (fascism and communism) far outweigh libertarian

doctrines (name them if you can).

From the societies of Caligula's Ancient Rome to Hitler's

fascist Germany and Stalin's communist Russia probably none

were absolutely authoritarian; but they came close. The

United States as a supposedly libertarian society is now

well on the way to authoritarian and we may well become the

absolute authoritarian society.

The issue of authoritarian versus libertarian society is

absolutely our most important single social issue. Absolute

libertarian society _should_ be our absolute goal.

Bernard Curry

Authoritarians teach what is written

When they have taught they can teach no more

Libertarians teach what is unwritten

When they have taught they have just begun

Bernard Curry

Email : bccom@ispwest.com