einstein

over the years. “On my view, Einstein was never an ardent ‘Machian’ positivist, and he was never a scientific realist, at least not in the sense
acquired by the term ‘scientific realist’ in later twentieth-century philosophical discourse. Einstein expected scientific theories to have the
proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no
scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career.” Howard
2004.
Gerald Holton, on the other side, argues that Einstein underwent “a pilgrimage from a philosophy of science in which sensationalism and
empiricism were at the center, to one in which the basis was a rational realism ... For a scientist to change his philosophical beliefs so
fundamentally is rare” (Holton 1973, 219, 245). See also Anton Zeilinger, “Einstein and Absolute Reality,” in Brockman, 123: “Instead of
accepting only concepts that can be verified by observation, Einstein insisted on the existence of a reality prior to and independent of
observation.”
Arthur Fine’s The Shaky Game explores all sides of the issue. He develops for himself what he calls a “natural ontological attitude” that is
neither realist nor antirealist, but instead “mediates between the two.” Of Einstein he says, “I think there is no backing away from the fact that
Einstein’s so-called realism has a deeply empiricist core that makes it a ‘realism’ more nominal than real.” Fine, 130, 108.
37. Einstein to Jerome Rothstein, May 22, 1950, AEA 22-54.
38. Einstein to Donald Mackay, Apr. 26, 1948, AEA 17-9.
39. Einstein 1949b, 11.
40. Gerald Holton, “Mach, Einstein and the Search for Reality,” in Holton 1973, 245. Arthur I. Miller disagrees with some of Holton’s
interpretation. He stresses that Einstein’s point was that for something to be real it should be measurable in principle, even if not actually
measurable in real life, and he was content using thought experiments to “measure” something. Miller 1981, 186.
41. Einstein 1949b, 81.
42. Einstein to Max Born, comments on a paper, Mar. 18, 1948, in Born 2005, 161.
43. Einstein, “The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics,”Science , May 24, 1940; Einstein 1954, 334.
44. For example, Arthur Fine argues, “Causality and observer-independence were primary features of Einstein’s realism, whereas a
space/time representation was an important but secondary feature.” Fine, 103.
45. Einstein, “Physics, Philosophy and Scientific Progress,”Journal of the International College of Surgeons 14 (1950), AEA 1-163; Fine, 98.
46. Einstein, “Physics and Reality,”Journal of the Franklin Institute (Mar. 1936), in Einstein 1954, 292. Gerald Holton says that this is more
properly translated: “The eternally incomprehensible thing about the world is its comprehensibility”; see Holton, “What Precisely Is
Thinking?,” in French, 161.
47. Einstein to Maurice Solovine, Mar. 30, 1952, in Solovine, 131 (not in AEA).
48. Einstein to Maurice Solovine, Jan. 1, 1951, in Solovine, 119.
49. Einstein to Max Born, Sept. 7, 1944, in Born 2005, 146, and AEA 8-207.
50. Born 2005, 69. He put Einstein in the category of “conservative individuals who were unable to free their minds from the prevailing
philosophical prejudices.”
51. Einstein to Maurice Solovine, Apr. 10, 1938, in Solovine, 85.
52. Einstein and Infeld, 296.
53. Ibid., 241.
54. Born 2005, 118, 122.
55. Brian 1996, 289.
56. Hoffmann 1972, 231.
57. Regis, 35.
58. Leopold Infeld, Quest (New York: Chelsea, 1980), 309.
59. Brian 1996, 303.
60. Infeld, introduction to the 1960 edition of Einstein and Infeld; Infeld, 112–114.
61. Pais 1982, 23.
62. Vladimir Pavlovich Vizgin, Unified Field Theories in the First Third of the 20th Century (Basel: Birkhäuser, 1994), 218. Matthew 19:6,
King James Version: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
63. Einstein to Max von Laue, Mar. 23, 1934, AEA 16-101.
64. From Whitrow, xii: “Einstein agreed that the chance of success was very small but the attempt must be made. He himself had established
his name; his position was assured, so he could afford to take the risk of failure. A young man with his way to make in the world could not
afford to take a risk by which he might lose a great career, so Einstein felt that in this matter he had a duty.”
65. Hoffmann 1972, 227.
66. Arthur I. Miller, “A Thing of Beauty,”New Scientist , Feb. 4, 2006.
67. Einstein to Maurice Solovine, June 27, 1938. See also Einstein to Maurice Solovine, Dec. 23, 1938, AEA 21-236: “I have come across a
wonderful subject which I am studying enthusiastically with two young colleagues. It offers the possibility of destroying the statistical basis
of physics, which I have always found intolerable. This extension of the general theory of relativity is of very great logical simplicity.”
68. William Laurence, “Einstein in Vast New Theory Links Atoms and Stars in Unified System,”New York Times , July 5, 1935; William
Laurence, “Einstein Sees Key to Universe Near,”New York Times , Mar. 14, 1939.
69. Hoffmann 1972, 227; Bernstein 1991, 157.
70. William Laurence, “Einstein Baffled by Cosmos Riddle,”New York Times , May 16, 1940.
71. Fölsing, 704.
72. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , Dec. 29, 1934.
73. William Laurence, “Einstein Sees Key to Universe Near,”New York Times , Mar. 14, 1939.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE: THE BOMB
1. FBI interview with Einstein regarding Leó Szilárd, Nov. 1, 1940, obtained by Gene Dannen under the Freedom of Information Act,
www.dannen.com/ein stein.html. It is ironic that the FBI had such an extensive and friendly interview with Einstein to check out Szilárd’s
worthiness for a security clearance, because Einstein had been denied such a clearance himself. See also Gene Dannen, “The Einstein-