Joel, Einstein's original formulation of the General Relativity field equations led to the inescapable conclusion that the universe had to be expanding. Einstein could not accept this and he introduced a cosmological constant--a parameter--designed to depict a static universe. When he visited Hubble in the 1920s and saw the inescapable evidence for an expanding universe, he declared that his introduction of the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder. But with the discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating, there may be a need for the cosmological constant after all.
The quest of the scientist is to find questions--large questions--which lead us into the forest of possibilities. There are never definitive answers and that is the wonder of science. Even though I am an atheist, I have always delighted in the search for questions in philosophy, neuroscience, metaphysics, scripture ... Your essay reminds me of Hannah Arendt's scepticism of moral philosophy and ethics and emphasis on personal responsibility. But I have always been haunted by Reinhold Niebuhr's, "Moral Man in an Immoral Society." As a Christian theologian, he forcefully argued that religious faith was the progenitor for a way out of the morass of group self-interest and denigration of the "other." It was an argument that had no resonance for me. But his analysis of group dynamics and the causes of social disruption was a powerful predictor for the holocaust to come in the 1930s. And while I sympathize with Arendt's emphasis on personal responsibility, I am drawn to the concept of the "moral imagination." It was a concept that originated with Edmund Burke in 1790 when he explored the causes for the breakdown of the French revolution that led to bloodshed and terror. Einstein went further, he insisted that the imagination was the only thing that gave us the will and power to transcend the limitations of our senses, intelligence, conditioning and personal desires. Your essay was both welcome and provocative.
Indeed, there are never definitive answers in science. Our humanness compels us to ask why and to look for connections in the seen and unseen world. Those connections bring conclusions, sometimes unexpected conclusions, which are fixed in our minds until we ask the next why. A good example is when Einstein proposed that the universe was static. Because of advanced technology and the constant search for the next “why?”, his theory was disproved with evidence that the universe is always expanding. If conclusions are never definitive, we must always be open to possibilities.
Joel, Einstein's original formulation of the General Relativity field equations led to the inescapable conclusion that the universe had to be expanding. Einstein could not accept this and he introduced a cosmological constant--a parameter--designed to depict a static universe. When he visited Hubble in the 1920s and saw the inescapable evidence for an expanding universe, he declared that his introduction of the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder. But with the discovery that the universe's expansion is accelerating, there may be a need for the cosmological constant after all.
Yes, thank you.
The quest of the scientist is to find questions--large questions--which lead us into the forest of possibilities. There are never definitive answers and that is the wonder of science. Even though I am an atheist, I have always delighted in the search for questions in philosophy, neuroscience, metaphysics, scripture ... Your essay reminds me of Hannah Arendt's scepticism of moral philosophy and ethics and emphasis on personal responsibility. But I have always been haunted by Reinhold Niebuhr's, "Moral Man in an Immoral Society." As a Christian theologian, he forcefully argued that religious faith was the progenitor for a way out of the morass of group self-interest and denigration of the "other." It was an argument that had no resonance for me. But his analysis of group dynamics and the causes of social disruption was a powerful predictor for the holocaust to come in the 1930s. And while I sympathize with Arendt's emphasis on personal responsibility, I am drawn to the concept of the "moral imagination." It was a concept that originated with Edmund Burke in 1790 when he explored the causes for the breakdown of the French revolution that led to bloodshed and terror. Einstein went further, he insisted that the imagination was the only thing that gave us the will and power to transcend the limitations of our senses, intelligence, conditioning and personal desires. Your essay was both welcome and provocative.
Irving,
Indeed, there are never definitive answers in science. Our humanness compels us to ask why and to look for connections in the seen and unseen world. Those connections bring conclusions, sometimes unexpected conclusions, which are fixed in our minds until we ask the next why. A good example is when Einstein proposed that the universe was static. Because of advanced technology and the constant search for the next “why?”, his theory was disproved with evidence that the universe is always expanding. If conclusions are never definitive, we must always be open to possibilities.
Joel