hey, I just wanted to say something.. I do not know if the stuff about einstein’s wife is all true or what is true and what is false.. but I have read an interview by einstein himself saying that his wife helped him a lot and DID do his maths for him. You have to realize that in those days a woman was not supposed to do anything else other than looking after the children and do the housework. I would not be surprised if there is no documents or official research papers with her name. do you even know you that women in switzerland got the vote only in 1971???? you cannot come to conclusions without taking into cosideration the historical facts. of course her name was nowhere!! she could only work using a man’s name!!! this shows how much you know about anything other than phisics my dear!
>I have read an interview by einstein himself saying that his wife helped him a lot and DID do his maths for him.<
Perhaps Veronica would like to provide a reference for this interview. Leaving aside that I have not come across any mention of such an interview in any of the large number of books and articles on Einstein (of all kinds) that I have looked through in the past year, if such had actually occurred, why have none of the main proponents of the “collaboration” claims cited it? We can get an indication of what Einstein actually said from a statement in a book by his colleague and friend Philipp Frank. In the passage in which Frank notes that not long after arriving in Bern, Einstein married Mileva Maric, he writes:
“When he wanted to discuss his ideas, which came to him in great abundance, her response was so slight that he was often unable to decide whether or not she was interested.”
It is not possible to ascertain the facts in any *specific* case by *generalisations* (however valid) about the severe limitations imposed on employment opportunities for women in society in those times (which varied from country to country in Europe). The fact that women didn’t get the vote in Switzerland until 1971 is not relevant. Women didn’t get the vote in France until 1945, but Marie Curie went to the Sorbonne in Paris to study physics and mathematics in 1891, and co-authored papers with Pierre Curie before they were together awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize jointly with the discoverer of radioactivity, Henri Becquerel. So it is simply not the case, as Veronica writes, that at that time a woman could only work [in science] using her husband’s name.
The reason Maric went to Switzerland to finish her high school studies, and go on to higher education, was because that country offered educational opportunities, including teacher training in science, for women from which they were disbarred in the Austro-Hungarian empire where her family lived. She was offered an assistantship in physics at the prestigious Zurich Polytechnic where she studied for a teaching diploma, provisional on her passing her diploma examination.
But in the last analysis the question, as always, is: What is the hard evidence for the claims being made?
> she could only work using a man’s name!!! this shows how much you know about anything other than phisics my dear! >
how true my dear, but does show how much you know the history of physics …offhand one can give Marie Curie (married Curie) and Sofia Kovalevskaya, and Lise Meitner, and Emily Noether…and, alas,
It has long been realised that phychologists are nothing more than jumped-up social workers. Very few have original thought and simply stick to ‘ground rules’ based on ideas of how to categorise people (and animals!). The orginal thinking comes from their patients surely?
>The questions is the following : Has anyone within the academic field of the history of science published a thorough feminist-oriented study of Mileva Maric?<
The nearest to such a study is the article by Troemel-Ploetz and the book by Trbuhović-Gjurić, both referenced in my article. A critical examination of these can be found here:
Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
>Studies of why women trail behind men in mathematics and physics are numerous. Mileva Maris’s grade of 5 could be legitimately interpreted through the sociological lens of gender relations in the late 1800s and early 1900s.<
But Maric did not trail behind in physics, only (rather badly) in the mathematics component of the final diploma examination.
>It could also be interpreted through the more sympathetic lens of Maric’s personal story: In 1902 she gave birth to her and Einstein’s first child, a daughter named Lieserl whom they gave up.<
I have certainly given sympathetic mention of this factor in the failure of her *second* attempt at the diploma exam in previous articles. But this has no relevance to her failure at the first attempt in 1900.
>I can imagine that only three year later, it would be difficult for most people to score a perfect grade in one of the most competitive polytechnic schools in Europe.<
As indicated above, Maric failed the diploma exam a year before she became pregnant, not three years later.
>If nothing else, I don’t find the comparison of her grades with those of her male colleagues to be a rigorous historical method.<
If this were the *only* criterion, I would agree with you entirely. But, to quote the founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers project, John Stachel, again:
“In her case, we have no published papers; no letters with a serious scientific content, either to Einstein nor to anyone else; nor any other objective evidence of her supposed creative talents. We do not even have hearsay accounts of conversations she had with anyone else that have a specific, scientific content, let alone a content claiming to report her ideas.”
>I would also like to point out that while Mileva MAric’s lack of achievement later in life, certainly in comparison to Albert Eisntein’s success (she never developed a successful career as a mathematician or physicist) may very well be attributed to the fact that after her divorce from Einstein, she was left as a single mother with a serious illness to care for two young sons.<
Maric was not left a single mother until 1914, fourteen years after she first failed the teaching diploma exam at Zurich Polytechnic.
> it is incredibly difficult for historians to evaluate whether female scientist in the first half of the twentieth century failed to build successful careers because they were inferior scientists or because of social circumstances and expectations that were beyond their control. I would therefore strongly advise against jumping to any conclusions about their scientific abilities and their generally silenced contributions.<
It is not the case that I have jumped to any conclusions. On the contrary, when, about eighteen months ago, my attention was drawn to the “Einstein’s Wife” documentary promoted by PBS, I went out of my way to examine every piece of writing by the proponents of the “collaboration” thesis. Nothing I have found has provided any hard evidence of “silenced contributions” by Maric. One has only to compare Einstein’s excitedly reporting his ideas in his letters to Maric in their student days to the almost total lack of comments on physics outside of her Polytechnic coursework in hers (even where we have her letters directly replying to ones from Einstein telling her of his latest ideas) to see the difference between them.
None of this denies Maric’s actual achievements in the face of difficult personal circumstances, or the great obstacles faced by women hoping for a scientific career in those times. But it does the cause of feminism no favours to make claims for individuals that go far beyond any hard evidence to support them (and which were certainly not made by Maric herself).
I would like to post a question and a comment in response to this article.
The questions is the following : Has anyone within the academic field of the history of science published a thorough feminist-oriented study of Mileva Maric ?
As for my comment: I completely agree with Allen Esterson that for a woman in science at the turn of the twentieth century, Maric’s achievement is truly exceptional, regardless of the extent of her contribution to Albert Eistein’s work, which according to available and not entirely reliable evidence cannot be deemed essential.
Nonetheless, as a graduate student in the history of science with an interest in women in Mathematics and Physics in the twentieth century, I do take issue with the characterization of Mileva Maric as an inferior mathematical intellect compared to her male classmates. If nothing else, I don’t find the comparison of her grades with those of her male colleagues to be a rigorous historical method.
Studies of why women trail behind men in mathematics and physics are numerous. Many of them are historical, and many of them suggest that this lag may be caused by social factors and by practices extant in educational institutions. Mileva Maris’s grade of 5 could be legitimately interpreted through the sociological lens of gender relations in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It could also be interpreted through the more sympathetic lens of Maric’s personal story: In 1902 she gave birth to her and Einstein’s first child, a daughter named Lieserl whom they gave up. According to Maric’s well-documented correspondences at this time, this was a distressful pregnancy during which she saw Einstein, who was not her husband at the time, very infrequently. (For more on these correspondences see In Alber’s Shadow : The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric by Milan Popovic). I can imagine that only three year later, it would be difficult for most people to score a perfect grade in one of the most competitive polytechnic schools in Europe. For all of these reasons, concluding that her grade of 5 indicates that she was not better at math than Einstein, or concluding that her failure to obtain a teaching diploma precludes describing her as a « mathematician », is simply a poorly thought-out conclusion that makes poor use of available socio-historical evidence.
I would also like to point out that while Mileva MAric’s lack of achievement later in life, certainly in comparison to Albert Eisntein’s success (she never developed a successful career as a mathematician or physicist) may very well be attributed to the fact that after her divorce from Einstein, she was left as a single mother with a serious illness to care for two young sons. This was a social position that rivaled being a female scientist in the early 1900s in difficulty and hardship. Aside from a few exceptions such as Marie Curie, it is incredibly difficult for historians to evaluate whether female scientist in the first half of the twentieth century failed to build successful careers because they were inferior scientists or because of social circumstances and expectations that were beyond their control. I would therefore strongly advise against jumping to any conclusions about their scientific abilities and their generally silenced contributions.
An amendment to one item in my response to Rea Davin:
Rea wrote:
>I would also like to point out that while Mileva MAric’s lack of achievement later in life, certainly in comparison to Albert Eisntein’s success (she never developed a successful career as a mathematician or physicist) may very well be attributed to the fact that after her divorce from Einstein, she was left as a single mother with a serious illness to care for two young sons.<
My response didn’t properly address the fact that Rea was referring to Maric’s not developing a successful career in her *later* life.
It is absolutely the case that Maric’s failing to have some kind of appropriate career after her separation (1914) and divorce (1919) from Einstein can be attributed to her illnesses, and having to care in particular for her younger son Eduard (born 1910), who in his twenties developed a debilitating psychotic illness. Without checking out the facts, I recall that she did do some tutoring for a period. However, it would have been virtually impossible for her to have attempted to take up an academic career by that stage, having failed to make the grade when she was younger. Even before she failed her first attempt at the diploma, according to a letter written by her friend Helene Kaufler at the time, Maric had decided against accepting a post of physics assistant at Zurich Polytechnic, preferring to apply for a librarian post at the Polytechnic. [Letter 14 July 1900, Popovic (2003), pp. 60-61]
thanks for your response. maybe i didn’t express myself clearly about the fact that i am not in the slightest concerned with this particular controversy over Maric’s contribution to Einstein’s work. I am interested in her.
I don’t mean to say that you have not provided plenty of important information about her — quite the contrary, but it all seems to be geared at *proving* one position in this controversy.
Our concerns seem fairly different, so there’s probably not much benefit in continuing this exchange.
I’ve read both Troemel-Ploetz’s article and Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s book, but the two authors are not historians of science, and hence they’re not the best methodological references for me. They also seem to take an extreme and conclusive stance vis-à-vis Maric that’s not open to further investigation and so I can’t consider them completely *thorough* either.
“Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”
It says “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit” which means whoever speaks badly of the holy spirit, “can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” will never be forgiven.
meaning if you insult the holy spirit, or deny it, you are doomed to hell no matter what you do. There is no other way you can interpret that.
> Has anyone within the academic field of the history of science published a thorough feminist-oriented study of Mileva Maric ?<
Rea writes:
> I’ve read both Troemel-Ploetz’s article and Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s book, but the two authors are not historians of science, and hence they’re not the best methodological references for me.<
It’s difficult to see what a feminist-oriented study of Maric specifically by an *historian of science* could add to the debate, since it would have no known scientific work by Maric to examine.
>I don’t mean to say that you have not provided plenty of important information about her — quite the contrary, but it all seems to be geared at *proving* one position in this controversy.<
Looking at it a different way, one could say I have closely examined all the evidence adduced by protagonists for the “collaboration” thesis, and found it not only uncompelling, but all to often factually erroneous or logically deficient.
If the so-called “New Humanism” is as fatuous, false, and feeble as Hoffman contends, and if Harvard’s—apparently nameless—“humanist chaplain” represents that stance, I have little quarrel with this article. BUT:
Hoffman himself characterizes the chaplain’s comment regarding Dawkins and Harris as “silly,” so it seems to me that the chaplain’s apology and commentary on it does not necessarily represent anything remotely resembling “Saint” Paul’s neurotic self-loathing that became orthodox Christianity’s reprehensible central theme. As a retired clinical psychologist and professor of that discipline, I heartily agree with the chaplain that “we hurt each other and fail to live up to our own standards” and that “[we] fail often to be as loving, or as smart, or just plain as right as I’d like to be.” (Italics added) I can’t find Hoffman’s “should” in the chaplain’s “as I’d like to be.”
Where is the Christian dogma in the chaplain’s admission? I read it as referring to his or her behavior, not beliefs; to his or her personal aspirations, not creedal conformity. What is wrong with admitting we are wrong—when we are wrong—and asking for forgiveness or otherwise apologizing? Hoffman seems a bit too disdainful of seeking a measure of harmony even when we emphatically and vigorously dispute another’s views or actions. For me—and perhaps also for the chaplain—this is not a question of “human nature’s” allegedly inherent perversity, but rather one of cultivating and practicing facilitative social skills.
My intellectual camp is the one shared by Dawkins, Harris, Kurtz, Weinberg, and hundreds of other enlightened secular humanists and atheists, but I see no merit in dismissing the values of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” I agree that “touchy, feely” humanists and New Age gurus have for much too long, much too uncritically, and much too enthusiastically stressed “niceness” over substance and pseudo-therapy over problem-solving. At its best, difficult and often painful—but genuine—therapy is problem-solving.
With humanist spokesmen like Michael Shermer, Jonathan Miller, and perhaps Harvard’s chaplain, I value the power of humor and of cultivating with our adversaries in our personal dealings with them—i.e., probably somewhat less in scholarly disputes—a mutual awareness that we are both subject to error in our arguments and to unintentionally and fruitlessly alienating each other. We need to stand our ground, shred absurdities, and vigorously oppose abuses. But let’s do that forcefully, not arrogantly or dogmatically—while candidly admitting that we’ll probably fall short of that objective more often that we’d like and that we are capable of honest error!
I was disgusted by Hoffman’s diatribe. There is a paranoia at CFI that I do not wish to associate with. I wholeheartedly admire and agree with the opinions of this Harvard chaplin regardless of his religious beliefs or affiliations. I expect to see the same kind of humility from the people at CFI.
hi I want to know how is education of phisics in high schools of countries? and what are their books in phisics are teach to students? the primary of their books. thank you and excuse me for my english. best regards.
“… [T[he incidence of witchcraft in Ghana is therefore more of a socio-cultural nature and goes beyond the Gambaga camp, cutting across the entire length and breadth of Ghana. The “Gambaga witch camp” is not an isolated case. For all we know, there may be countless other women (and even men) and children living in various parts of the country under the same or similar circumstances, whose rights have also been violated contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. Article 14 says: “Every person has a right to personal liberty.” In addition, article 16 says: “No person shall be held in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced labour”
The two “In Focus” articles on B&W’ HOMEPAGE make for demoralizing appraisal. The women/children have it so impertinently, excruciatingly putrid either way one looks at it… Nevertheless, for the reason of that of hunger, lack of education and poverty. They cannot escape. There is nowhere for them to go. Like children in Goldenbridge Industrial School Dublin, they too hanker, CRAVE, and PINE for some kind creatures to come along into their lives and to take them out of their agony/WRETCHEDNESS AND DESPAIR… HOWEVER, NOT TOO MUCH CAN BE DONE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO UTTERLY TRAPPED IN FAR OFF FLUNG COUNTRIES. Kind faces to look at them and to notice that they are full human beings are non-existent in such countries such as Ghana the polygamist men have it all their way. The world evolves around them. It always has and it always will for a long time in third world countries. As it is said folk in Co Mayo, Ireland, The west is awake. However, to the downtrodden women/children of Ghana and other countries who see them as mere chattels the west is asleep. B&W keep it up. Hold the misogynists must- by the people – accountable for their cruelty to vulnerable human beings.
Khashaba is mistaken about empirical sciences not nourishing the human spirit. They can and do, for example by helping people, and by expressing and rewarding loyalty to reason & evidence.
And it’s a mistake to imply that all humans need a fairy tale. Some want one, is all.
Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.
“But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says ‘I am a Muslim’ to go on and say ‘I am secular too.’ And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!”
“[constitution] what do they say? That sovereignty belongs nconditionally to the people…But both materially, and in essence, sovereignty unconditionally and always belongs to Allah!”
Professor Baggini’s digest of Descartes’ Meditations:
The Tuesday entry helps Descartes escape with his worst deed. It wasn’t that he convinced himself he was non-physical and indivisible, but that he thought his non-physical and indivisible aspect was a separate substance over against his physical and divisible stuff.
Wednesday shows a lapse of memory. Descartes didn’t borrow his ‘proof’ from Aquinas. He went further back to Anselm.
Whomever wrote butterflies and Wheels… Im a muslim woman and very happy to be. Peoples actions do not define islam, islam is supposed to define us, I said supposed. Just because a man is wrong in the way he treats his wife does not make it apart of islam. When I became muslim my teacher told me do not look at people, they will lead you astray. People are not perfect, Islam is, so people are going to do things which are not cohesive with islam and you cannot point the blame on our way of life. Many ignorant peoples will say Allah says beating the wife is allowed, but there are conditions and restrictions upon that. Just as you would hit your child but not abuse them to the best of my knowledge this is what is meant Allah knows best, because you cannot leave a bruise or hit her in the face or head. As well there are two suggested actions taken before that can even occur, you see. And just a little advice if you are going to speak about islam you should speak the truth and then you would be just. You wouldnt like for someone to tell lies about your way of life. And what proof do you have for what you are claiming?
In reading within the category Cultural Relativism, I encountered a typo(?)-cum-neologism that is truly a word to ponder: “instituition”. Playing with definitions, does this mean ‘non-verifiable institutional thoughts’, or ‘academic fees’, or . . . ?
I have enjoyed butterflies and wheels.com very much. A breath of fresh air!
Thought I’d offer a brief comment here, having followed a reference to your website in an Amazon review. I thought I might find some material here a cut above the atheist/humanist average, after all ‘Why truth matters?’ seemed to me to be a good title for a book. And so..I found this article by Ophelia. At least I’ve saved myself some money.
‘people who have no evidence for their beliefs’ OB
Do you really think that Christians have no evidence for their beliefs? Last year I watched Craig debate Grayling at Oxford University. You can listen to Bahnsen vs Stein and read Copleston vs Russell. Or look at Plantinga’s review of Dawkins. You see, the Christian world view is, and always has been defensible at the highest academic level. Oh, for the day when the confident humanist actually applies to the question the intellectual rigour she professes. You know, you owe it to yourselves as humans to do that.
>Christian world view is, and always has been defensible at the highest academic level>
Every month every new discovery in astronomy, computers, particle physics, microbiology, and medicine is also another proof, another validition, for the christian world view.
“What you’re not supposed to think about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have died ?”
History repeating
(with modern means to blow themselves up in the market square and kill hundreads in one shot).
The history of Sunni-Shiia sectarian slaughter goes back to the 7th and the first Muslim civil war.
It it is 1300 year old,
and it won’t end tomorrow.
“There are only two political parties in Iraq: the Sunni party and the Shia party.” Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister, 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950.
Leaving aside the massacres at Karbala that mark the definitive split between Sunnis and Shia in 680, here are a few highlights:
972: Shi’ite Fatimids conquer Sunni Egypt, and continue fighting Sunnis until they rule much of North Africa and the Middle East.
1040s: Sunni Zirid revolt in North Africa against Shi’ite rule.
1169: The Sunnis Nuraddin and Saladin seize Egypt, ending Shi’ite Fatimid rule.
Early 1500’s: Shi’ites take control of Persia, violently suppressing Sunni ulama.
1514: War between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi’ite Persian Safavids.
1623: More war between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi’ite Persian Safavids. This conflict was centered in Iraq. The Safavids captured Baghdad in 1624; the Ottomans recaptured it in 1638.
1980-1988: Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-controlled Iraq fights a protracted war against the Iranian Shi’ite mullahocracy.
Virgins do not become pregnant, therefore God does not exist.
Then again, I heard that it would soon be possible to fuse two female zygotes to produce an embryo.
Why do you think your scientific understanding precludes God acting?
The claim is that Jesus was born of a virgin. The evidence is the New Testament. You may not like the evidence, but it is evidence.
In your most recent post you say something about 1300 years of Islamic history and I presume you mean it to be significant.
If the question of whether or not God exists is open, then I think I am entitled to take the New Testament as evidence that he does. I mean, why should I conform to your worldview?
>The claim is that Jesus was born of a virgin. The evidence is the New Testament. You may not like the evidence, but it is evidence.>
The New Testament-text is not evidence, it is a collection of claims (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.)
You got to believe them.
There is indeed some weak evidence that a person called Jesus existed, created some religious turmoil in the ancient Israel with his preaching, and he was crucified by the Roman authorities.
Even if true, there is nothing new or unusal about it in history. Just go today to LA and you can meet dozens of gurus.
A car bomb in the Iraqi capital Baghdad near one of the city’s most revered Sunni mosques killed at least 20 people and wounded dozens more, police said.
>A car bomb in the Iraqi capital Baghdad near one of the city’s most revered Sunni mosques killed at least 20 people and wounded dozens more, police said.>
It is the dirty work of islamophobes and neocon-zionist-christians
conspirators and crusaders.
Muslims can not do wrong, they are the religion of peace and spiritual-inner jihad.
When they do such things it is either that the Jews made them do it or the Jews did it so as Muslims to be blamed.
Death to America!, Death to Israel, Death to Pope!, Death to the West !
Secular Turks argue that Islam will always seek more space in people’s lives, and therefore should be reined in. They look to the military as secularism’s final defender.
“Islam is not like other religions,” said Kadim Yildirim, a history teacher “It influences every part of your life, even your bedroom.”
hey, I just wanted to say something.. I do not know if the stuff about einstein’s wife is all true or what is true and what is false.. but I have read an interview by einstein himself saying that his wife helped him a lot and DID do his maths for him. You have to realize that in those days a woman was not supposed to do anything else other than looking after the children and do the housework. I would not be surprised if there is no documents or official research papers with her name. do you even know you that women in switzerland got the vote only in 1971???? you cannot come to conclusions without taking into cosideration the historical facts. of course her name was nowhere!! she could only work using a man’s name!!! this shows how much you know about anything other than phisics my dear!
Using LeVay to refute Butler? You make it so easy to dismiss your article.
Veronica writes:
>I have read an interview by einstein himself saying that his wife helped him a lot and DID do his maths for him.< Perhaps Veronica would like to provide a reference for this interview. Leaving aside that I have not come across any mention of such an interview in any of the large number of books and articles on Einstein (of all kinds) that I have looked through in the past year, if such had actually occurred, why have none of the main proponents of the “collaboration” claims cited it? We can get an indication of what Einstein actually said from a statement in a book by his colleague and friend Philipp Frank. In the passage in which Frank notes that not long after arriving in Bern, Einstein married Mileva Maric, he writes: “When he wanted to discuss his ideas, which came to him in great abundance, her response was so slight that he was often unable to decide whether or not she was interested.” It is not possible to ascertain the facts in any *specific* case by *generalisations* (however valid) about the severe limitations imposed on employment opportunities for women in society in those times (which varied from country to country in Europe). The fact that women didn’t get the vote in Switzerland until 1971 is not relevant. Women didn’t get the vote in France until 1945, but Marie Curie went to the Sorbonne in Paris to study physics and mathematics in 1891, and co-authored papers with Pierre Curie before they were together awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize jointly with the discoverer of radioactivity, Henri Becquerel. So it is simply not the case, as Veronica writes, that at that time a woman could only work [in science] using her husband’s name. The reason Maric went to Switzerland to finish her high school studies, and go on to higher education, was because that country offered educational opportunities, including teacher training in science, for women from which they were disbarred in the Austro-Hungarian empire where her family lived. She was offered an assistantship in physics at the prestigious Zurich Polytechnic where she studied for a teaching diploma, provisional on her passing her diploma examination. But in the last analysis the question, as always, is: What is the hard evidence for the claims being made?
> she could only work using a man’s name!!! this shows how much you know about anything other than phisics my dear! >
how true my dear, but does show how much you know the history of physics …offhand one can give Marie Curie (married Curie) and Sofia Kovalevskaya, and Lise Meitner, and Emily Noether…and, alas,
not even a ghost of Mileva Maric.
Phychologists have little or no original thought
It has long been realised that phychologists are nothing more than jumped-up social workers. Very few have original thought and simply stick to ‘ground rules’ based on ideas of how to categorise people (and animals!). The orginal thinking comes from their patients surely?
Rea Daven asks:
>The questions is the following : Has anyone within the academic field of the history of science published a thorough feminist-oriented study of Mileva Maric?< The nearest to such a study is the article by Troemel-Ploetz and the book by Trbuhović-Gjurić, both referenced in my article. A critical examination of these can be found here: Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics? A Response to Troemel-Ploetz.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=218
Mileva Maric: Einstein’s Wife
http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm
Rea writes:
>Studies of why women trail behind men in mathematics and physics are numerous. Mileva Maris’s grade of 5 could be legitimately interpreted through the sociological lens of gender relations in the late 1800s and early 1900s.< But Maric did not trail behind in physics, only (rather badly) in the mathematics component of the final diploma examination. >It could also be interpreted through the more sympathetic lens of Maric’s personal story: In 1902 she gave birth to her and Einstein’s first child, a daughter named Lieserl whom they gave up.< I have certainly given sympathetic mention of this factor in the failure of her *second* attempt at the diploma exam in previous articles. But this has no relevance to her failure at the first attempt in 1900. >I can imagine that only three year later, it would be difficult for most people to score a perfect grade in one of the most competitive polytechnic schools in Europe.< As indicated above, Maric failed the diploma exam a year before she became pregnant, not three years later. >If nothing else, I don’t find the comparison of her grades with those of her male colleagues to be a rigorous historical method.< If this were the *only* criterion, I would agree with you entirely. But, to quote the founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers project, John Stachel, again: “In her case, we have no published papers; no letters with a serious scientific content, either to Einstein nor to anyone else; nor any other objective evidence of her supposed creative talents. We do not even have hearsay accounts of conversations she had with anyone else that have a specific, scientific content, let alone a content claiming to report her ideas.” >I would also like to point out that while Mileva MAric’s lack of achievement later in life, certainly in comparison to Albert Eisntein’s success (she never developed a successful career as a mathematician or physicist) may very well be attributed to the fact that after her divorce from Einstein, she was left as a single mother with a serious illness to care for two young sons.< Maric was not left a single mother until 1914, fourteen years after she first failed the teaching diploma exam at Zurich Polytechnic. > it is incredibly difficult for historians to evaluate whether female scientist in the first half of the twentieth century failed to build successful careers because they were inferior scientists or because of social circumstances and expectations that were beyond their control. I would therefore strongly advise against jumping to any conclusions about their scientific abilities and their generally silenced contributions.< It is not the case that I have jumped to any conclusions. On the contrary, when, about eighteen months ago, my attention was drawn to the “Einstein’s Wife” documentary promoted by PBS, I went out of my way to examine every piece of writing by the proponents of the “collaboration” thesis. Nothing I have found has provided any hard evidence of “silenced contributions” by Maric. One has only to compare Einstein’s excitedly reporting his ideas in his letters to Maric in their student days to the almost total lack of comments on physics outside of her Polytechnic coursework in hers (even where we have her letters directly replying to ones from Einstein telling her of his latest ideas) to see the difference between them. None of this denies Maric’s actual achievements in the face of difficult personal circumstances, or the great obstacles faced by women hoping for a scientific career in those times. But it does the cause of feminism no favours to make claims for individuals that go far beyond any hard evidence to support them (and which were certainly not made by Maric herself).
I would like to post a question and a comment in response to this article.
The questions is the following : Has anyone within the academic field of the history of science published a thorough feminist-oriented study of Mileva Maric ?
As for my comment: I completely agree with Allen Esterson that for a woman in science at the turn of the twentieth century, Maric’s achievement is truly exceptional, regardless of the extent of her contribution to Albert Eistein’s work, which according to available and not entirely reliable evidence cannot be deemed essential.
Nonetheless, as a graduate student in the history of science with an interest in women in Mathematics and Physics in the twentieth century, I do take issue with the characterization of Mileva Maric as an inferior mathematical intellect compared to her male classmates. If nothing else, I don’t find the comparison of her grades with those of her male colleagues to be a rigorous historical method.
Studies of why women trail behind men in mathematics and physics are numerous. Many of them are historical, and many of them suggest that this lag may be caused by social factors and by practices extant in educational institutions. Mileva Maris’s grade of 5 could be legitimately interpreted through the sociological lens of gender relations in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It could also be interpreted through the more sympathetic lens of Maric’s personal story: In 1902 she gave birth to her and Einstein’s first child, a daughter named Lieserl whom they gave up. According to Maric’s well-documented correspondences at this time, this was a distressful pregnancy during which she saw Einstein, who was not her husband at the time, very infrequently. (For more on these correspondences see In Alber’s Shadow : The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric by Milan Popovic). I can imagine that only three year later, it would be difficult for most people to score a perfect grade in one of the most competitive polytechnic schools in Europe. For all of these reasons, concluding that her grade of 5 indicates that she was not better at math than Einstein, or concluding that her failure to obtain a teaching diploma precludes describing her as a « mathematician », is simply a poorly thought-out conclusion that makes poor use of available socio-historical evidence.
I would also like to point out that while Mileva MAric’s lack of achievement later in life, certainly in comparison to Albert Eisntein’s success (she never developed a successful career as a mathematician or physicist) may very well be attributed to the fact that after her divorce from Einstein, she was left as a single mother with a serious illness to care for two young sons. This was a social position that rivaled being a female scientist in the early 1900s in difficulty and hardship. Aside from a few exceptions such as Marie Curie, it is incredibly difficult for historians to evaluate whether female scientist in the first half of the twentieth century failed to build successful careers because they were inferior scientists or because of social circumstances and expectations that were beyond their control. I would therefore strongly advise against jumping to any conclusions about their scientific abilities and their generally silenced contributions.
An amendment to one item in my response to Rea Davin:
Rea wrote:
>I would also like to point out that while Mileva MAric’s lack of achievement later in life, certainly in comparison to Albert Eisntein’s success (she never developed a successful career as a mathematician or physicist) may very well be attributed to the fact that after her divorce from Einstein, she was left as a single mother with a serious illness to care for two young sons.< My response didn’t properly address the fact that Rea was referring to Maric’s not developing a successful career in her *later* life. It is absolutely the case that Maric’s failing to have some kind of appropriate career after her separation (1914) and divorce (1919) from Einstein can be attributed to her illnesses, and having to care in particular for her younger son Eduard (born 1910), who in his twenties developed a debilitating psychotic illness. Without checking out the facts, I recall that she did do some tutoring for a period. However, it would have been virtually impossible for her to have attempted to take up an academic career by that stage, having failed to make the grade when she was younger. Even before she failed her first attempt at the diploma, according to a letter written by her friend Helene Kaufler at the time, Maric had decided against accepting a post of physics assistant at Zurich Polytechnic, preferring to apply for a librarian post at the Polytechnic. [Letter 14 July 1900, Popovic (2003), pp. 60-61]
Hi there.
thanks for your response. maybe i didn’t express myself clearly about the fact that i am not in the slightest concerned with this particular controversy over Maric’s contribution to Einstein’s work. I am interested in her.
I don’t mean to say that you have not provided plenty of important information about her — quite the contrary, but it all seems to be geared at *proving* one position in this controversy.
Our concerns seem fairly different, so there’s probably not much benefit in continuing this exchange.
I’ve read both Troemel-Ploetz’s article and Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s book, but the two authors are not historians of science, and hence they’re not the best methodological references for me. They also seem to take an extreme and conclusive stance vis-à-vis Maric that’s not open to further investigation and so I can’t consider them completely *thorough* either.
thank you, however, for answering my question.
“Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”
It says “whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit” which means whoever speaks badly of the holy spirit, “can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” will never be forgiven.
meaning if you insult the holy spirit, or deny it, you are doomed to hell no matter what you do. There is no other way you can interpret that.
Following her initial question
> Has anyone within the academic field of the history of science published a thorough feminist-oriented study of Mileva Maric ?<
Rea writes:
> I’ve read both Troemel-Ploetz’s article and Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s book, but the two authors are not historians of science, and hence they’re not the best methodological references for me.< It’s difficult to see what a feminist-oriented study of Maric specifically by an *historian of science* could add to the debate, since it would have no known scientific work by Maric to examine. >I don’t mean to say that you have not provided plenty of important information about her — quite the contrary, but it all seems to be geared at *proving* one position in this controversy.< Looking at it a different way, one could say I have closely examined all the evidence adduced by protagonists for the “collaboration” thesis, and found it not only uncompelling, but all to often factually erroneous or logically deficient.
>But in the last analysis the question, as always, is: What is the hard evidence for the claims being made?>
It issue remains “sub judice” for die-hard truth-seekers but Mileva Maric should be now released and cleared of the charge of relativity.
One is innocent by default when no hard proof for the guilt can be shown to the jury.
If the so-called “New Humanism” is as fatuous, false, and feeble as Hoffman contends, and if Harvard’s—apparently nameless—“humanist chaplain” represents that stance, I have little quarrel with this article. BUT:
Hoffman himself characterizes the chaplain’s comment regarding Dawkins and Harris as “silly,” so it seems to me that the chaplain’s apology and commentary on it does not necessarily represent anything remotely resembling “Saint” Paul’s neurotic self-loathing that became orthodox Christianity’s reprehensible central theme. As a retired clinical psychologist and professor of that discipline, I heartily agree with the chaplain that “we hurt each other and fail to live up to our own standards” and that “[we] fail often to be as loving, or as smart, or just plain as right as I’d like to be.” (Italics added) I can’t find Hoffman’s “should” in the chaplain’s “as I’d like to be.”
Where is the Christian dogma in the chaplain’s admission? I read it as referring to his or her behavior, not beliefs; to his or her personal aspirations, not creedal conformity. What is wrong with admitting we are wrong—when we are wrong—and asking for forgiveness or otherwise apologizing? Hoffman seems a bit too disdainful of seeking a measure of harmony even when we emphatically and vigorously dispute another’s views or actions. For me—and perhaps also for the chaplain—this is not a question of “human nature’s” allegedly inherent perversity, but rather one of cultivating and practicing facilitative social skills.
My intellectual camp is the one shared by Dawkins, Harris, Kurtz, Weinberg, and hundreds of other enlightened secular humanists and atheists, but I see no merit in dismissing the values of “disagreeing without being disagreeable.” I agree that “touchy, feely” humanists and New Age gurus have for much too long, much too uncritically, and much too enthusiastically stressed “niceness” over substance and pseudo-therapy over problem-solving. At its best, difficult and often painful—but genuine—therapy is problem-solving.
With humanist spokesmen like Michael Shermer, Jonathan Miller, and perhaps Harvard’s chaplain, I value the power of humor and of cultivating with our adversaries in our personal dealings with them—i.e., probably somewhat less in scholarly disputes—a mutual awareness that we are both subject to error in our arguments and to unintentionally and fruitlessly alienating each other. We need to stand our ground, shred absurdities, and vigorously oppose abuses. But let’s do that forcefully, not arrogantly or dogmatically—while candidly admitting that we’ll probably fall short of that objective more often that we’d like and that we are capable of honest error!
Walter R. Stevens
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
San Diego State University
syzygy25@cox.net
What in an incredible over-reaction to a simple, seemingly honest precursor to a retraction.
I have no idea how you read all that religious stuff into it. Nor do I recognize the rather spiteful caricature of a “New Humanist”.
I was disgusted by Hoffman’s diatribe. There is a paranoia at CFI that I do not wish to associate with. I wholeheartedly admire and agree with the opinions of this Harvard chaplin regardless of his religious beliefs or affiliations. I expect to see the same kind of humility from the people at CFI.
hi I want to know how is education of phisics in high schools of countries? and what are their books in phisics are teach to students? the primary of their books. thank you and excuse me for my english. best regards.
“… [T[he incidence of witchcraft in Ghana is therefore more of a socio-cultural nature and goes beyond the Gambaga camp, cutting across the entire length and breadth of Ghana. The “Gambaga witch camp” is not an isolated case. For all we know, there may be countless other women (and even men) and children living in various parts of the country under the same or similar circumstances, whose rights have also been violated contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. Article 14 says: “Every person has a right to personal liberty.” In addition, article 16 says: “No person shall be held in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced labour”
The two “In Focus” articles on B&W’ HOMEPAGE make for demoralizing appraisal. The women/children have it so impertinently, excruciatingly putrid either way one looks at it… Nevertheless, for the reason of that of hunger, lack of education and poverty. They cannot escape. There is nowhere for them to go. Like children in Goldenbridge Industrial School Dublin, they too hanker, CRAVE, and PINE for some kind creatures to come along into their lives and to take them out of their agony/WRETCHEDNESS AND DESPAIR… HOWEVER, NOT TOO MUCH CAN BE DONE BECAUSE THEY ARE SO UTTERLY TRAPPED IN FAR OFF FLUNG COUNTRIES. Kind faces to look at them and to notice that they are full human beings are non-existent in such countries such as Ghana the polygamist men have it all their way. The world evolves around them. It always has and it always will for a long time in third world countries. As it is said folk in Co Mayo, Ireland, The west is awake. However, to the downtrodden women/children of Ghana and other countries who see them as mere chattels the west is asleep. B&W keep it up. Hold the misogynists must- by the people – accountable for their cruelty to vulnerable human beings.
CNN Lies… they dont know anything about religion eccept what they want to believe
Khashaba is mistaken about empirical sciences not nourishing the human spirit. They can and do, for example by helping people, and by expressing and rewarding loyalty to reason & evidence.
And it’s a mistake to imply that all humans need a fairy tale. Some want one, is all.
Melanie Philips on islamism and liberalism.
On the betrayal of the Enlightenment’s values and their replacement with postmodern babble-talk and multiculturalism.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=510
Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.
Anyone here passionate for Turkey’s admission to EU ?
PM T.Erdogan :
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD159607
“But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says ‘I am a Muslim’ to go on and say ‘I am secular too.’ And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!”
“[constitution] what do they say? That sovereignty belongs nconditionally to the people…But both materially, and in essence, sovereignty unconditionally and always belongs to Allah!”
In an interview located here:
http://www.wpr.org/book/060611a.html
[Note what Karen Armstrong says] concerning what the Qur’an says regarding violence against unbelievers at around the 26:00 mark.
One wonders at her motives . . . perhaps she is only capable of seeing the world the way she wants it, rather than the way it actually is.
Professor Baggini’s digest of Descartes’ Meditations:
The Tuesday entry helps Descartes escape with his worst deed. It wasn’t that he convinced himself he was non-physical and indivisible, but that he thought his non-physical and indivisible aspect was a separate substance over against his physical and divisible stuff.
Wednesday shows a lapse of memory. Descartes didn’t borrow his ‘proof’ from Aquinas. He went further back to Anselm.
D. R. Khashaba
Whomever wrote butterflies and Wheels… Im a muslim woman and very happy to be. Peoples actions do not define islam, islam is supposed to define us, I said supposed. Just because a man is wrong in the way he treats his wife does not make it apart of islam. When I became muslim my teacher told me do not look at people, they will lead you astray. People are not perfect, Islam is, so people are going to do things which are not cohesive with islam and you cannot point the blame on our way of life. Many ignorant peoples will say Allah says beating the wife is allowed, but there are conditions and restrictions upon that. Just as you would hit your child but not abuse them to the best of my knowledge this is what is meant Allah knows best, because you cannot leave a bruise or hit her in the face or head. As well there are two suggested actions taken before that can even occur, you see. And just a little advice if you are going to speak about islam you should speak the truth and then you would be just. You wouldnt like for someone to tell lies about your way of life. And what proof do you have for what you are claiming?
sabriyyah
If anyone still had doubts
Everyone has their “take” on why America is having so many
problems, but until now it has never really been explained
with logic.
Just consider this article.
http://www.websitemirror.org/X-R-9_156_The_American_Nightmare_n-i.html
Tom
In reading within the category Cultural Relativism, I encountered a typo(?)-cum-neologism that is truly a word to ponder: “instituition”. Playing with definitions, does this mean ‘non-verifiable institutional thoughts’, or ‘academic fees’, or . . . ?
I have enjoyed butterflies and wheels.com very much. A breath of fresh air!
Descartes’ Meditations (Digested)
Sounds like a rather silly parody in my opinion.
Thought I’d offer a brief comment here, having followed a reference to your website in an Amazon review. I thought I might find some material here a cut above the atheist/humanist average, after all ‘Why truth matters?’ seemed to me to be a good title for a book. And so..I found this article by Ophelia. At least I’ve saved myself some money.
‘people who have no evidence for their beliefs’ OB
Do you really think that Christians have no evidence for their beliefs? Last year I watched Craig debate Grayling at Oxford University. You can listen to Bahnsen vs Stein and read Copleston vs Russell. Or look at Plantinga’s review of Dawkins. You see, the Christian world view is, and always has been defensible at the highest academic level. Oh, for the day when the confident humanist actually applies to the question the intellectual rigour she professes. You know, you owe it to yourselves as humans to do that.
>Christian world view is, and always has been defensible at the highest academic level>
Every month every new discovery in astronomy, computers, particle physics, microbiology, and medicine is also another proof, another validition, for the christian world view.
The evidence is mounting and it becomes
irresistible : Yes, Mary was virgin.
Reality Check: What you’re not supposed to think about
“655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?”
-Rosie O’Donnell from The View comparing U.S. activities with Islamic terrorism
http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/reality-check-what-youre-not-supposed-to-think-about/
“What you’re not supposed to think about 655,000 Iraqi civilians have died ?”
History repeating
(with modern means to blow themselves up in the market square and kill hundreads in one shot).
The history of Sunni-Shiia sectarian slaughter goes back to the 7th and the first Muslim civil war.
It it is 1300 year old,
and it won’t end tomorrow.
“There are only two political parties in Iraq: the Sunni party and the Shia party.” Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister, 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950.
Leaving aside the massacres at Karbala that mark the definitive split between Sunnis and Shia in 680, here are a few highlights:
972: Shi’ite Fatimids conquer Sunni Egypt, and continue fighting Sunnis until they rule much of North Africa and the Middle East.
1040s: Sunni Zirid revolt in North Africa against Shi’ite rule.
1169: The Sunnis Nuraddin and Saladin seize Egypt, ending Shi’ite Fatimid rule.
Early 1500’s: Shi’ites take control of Persia, violently suppressing Sunni ulama.
1514: War between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi’ite Persian Safavids.
1623: More war between the Sunni Ottoman Turks and the Shi’ite Persian Safavids. This conflict was centered in Iraq. The Safavids captured Baghdad in 1624; the Ottomans recaptured it in 1638.
1980-1988: Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-controlled Iraq fights a protracted war against the Iranian Shi’ite mullahocracy.
Right now, today, far from Iraq:
Yemen Declares Jihad on Yemeni Shiites
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186855.php
HuFiz:
Virgins do not become pregnant, therefore God does not exist.
Then again, I heard that it would soon be possible to fuse two female zygotes to produce an embryo.
Why do you think your scientific understanding precludes God acting?
The claim is that Jesus was born of a virgin. The evidence is the New Testament. You may not like the evidence, but it is evidence.
In your most recent post you say something about 1300 years of Islamic history and I presume you mean it to be significant.
If the question of whether or not God exists is open, then I think I am entitled to take the New Testament as evidence that he does. I mean, why should I conform to your worldview?
>The claim is that Jesus was born of a virgin. The evidence is the New Testament. You may not like the evidence, but it is evidence.>
The New Testament-text is not evidence, it is a collection of claims (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.)
You got to believe them.
There is indeed some weak evidence that a person called Jesus existed, created some religious turmoil in the ancient Israel with his preaching, and he was crucified by the Roman authorities.
Even if true, there is nothing new or unusal about it in history. Just go today to LA and you can meet dozens of gurus.
Iraq car bomb kills at least 20
A car bomb in the Iraqi capital Baghdad near one of the city’s most revered Sunni mosques killed at least 20 people and wounded dozens more, police said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6698093.stm
>A car bomb in the Iraqi capital Baghdad near one of the city’s most revered Sunni mosques killed at least 20 people and wounded dozens more, police said.>
It is the dirty work of islamophobes and neocon-zionist-christians
conspirators and crusaders.
Muslims can not do wrong, they are the religion of peace and spiritual-inner jihad.
When they do such things it is either that the Jews made them do it or the Jews did it so as Muslims to be blamed.
Death to America!, Death to Israel, Death to Pope!, Death to the West !
Amen
Good bye Kemal, hello Mohammed
The reislamization of the Turkish State
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/news/turkey.php
Secular Turks argue that Islam will always seek more space in people’s lives, and therefore should be reined in. They look to the military as secularism’s final defender.
“Islam is not like other religions,” said Kadim Yildirim, a history teacher “It influences every part of your life, even your bedroom.”