Einstein and other gods of science

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Post Reply
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:49 pm

Einstein's Medical Friends and Their Influence on His Life


5-16-305 Tsukimicho, Fukuroi City, Shizuoka 437-01, Japan (Tel: & Fax: (+81) 538 49 2274)

Abstract -- Albert Einstein had at least six medical friends who influenced his thoughts. In each period (Munich, Switzerland, Berlin and Princeton) of his life, one could identify the medically qualified individuals with whom Einstein was in close contact. These include Max Talmey, Heinrich Zangger, George Nicolai, Hans MLihsam, Janos Plesch and Gustav Bucky. They probably enriched Einstein's life and thoughts significantly by being mentors, confidants, intellectual sparring partners and research collaborators to him. With MLihsam, Einstein published a paper in a German medical journal. In collaboration with Bucky, he also received a US patent for a light-intensity self-adjusting camera in 1936.


While engaged in studying the life of physicist Albert Einstein (1--4), I was amused to find that he had at least six medical friends who were close to him. It is not unusual for a scientist, who specialized in physical sciences, to have friends trained in a medical discipline. But, in Einstein's case, this observation may have some significance. Since this aspect has not been explored by any of the Einstein scholars so far, I present my thoughts on the influence of these medical friends on Einstein's life.

Biographical sketches

The table lists six medical friends who influenced Einstein's life. The biographical sketches provided below about each of them are arranged in the chronological order of their acquaintance with Einstein.

1. Max Talmey (1869 – 1941)

Thus, Talmey deserves the credit for introducing Einstein to the world of science. He matriculated in 1889 from Munich University and eventually emi- grated to the USA at the beginning of this century to practise [sic] medicine in New York. His own popular book, The Relativity Theory Simplified, and the Formative Years of its Inventor, was published in 1932.

2. Heinrich Zangger (1874-1957)

Zangger was Einstein's friend in Zurich, who held the position of Director of the Institute for Forensic Medicine at the University of Zurich. Zangger first met Einstein in 1905 according to Highfield and Carter (9): 'to discuss Brownian motion, and [he] gradually came to act as a personal and professional confidant'. He was also instrumental in bringing Einstein back to Zurich from Prague in 1913. When not residing in Zurich, Einstein corresponded with Zangger to express his thoughts and solicit advice on various issues affecting his life. Since he lived in Zurich, Zangger also served as a 'substitute father' to Einstein's two sons, when Einstein was living apart from them, following separation from his first wife Mileva Maric in 1914 (9).

3. George Nicolai (1874-1964)

An outspoken German pacifist and a professor of physiology at the University of Berlin from 1910- 1915, in late 1914, Nicolai coauthored with Einstein a manifesto entitled Manifesto to Europeans, espousing pacifism. This manifesto, which asked the intellectuals to join forces in demanding a just peace and to work towards the establishment of a united Europe, was a rebuttal to the Manifesto to the Civilized World signed by 93 German intellectuals, among whom Wilhelm Rrntgen [sic], Ernst Haeckel, Paul Ehrlich and Max Planck were giants in science of that era. The manifesto coauthored by Nicolai and Einstein was signed by only two other colleagues, though circulated among all the professors employed at the University of Berlin, and many had expressed their sympathy with the document. During World War I, Nicolai continued his campaign and published a tract entitled Die Biologie des Krieges (1916; with a Foreword by Romain Rolland). An American translation of this work appeared in 1918 as The Biology of War. Nicolai paid the price for his pacifism and was ...'dishonored and made to work as an orderly in a field hospital' (8), and ...'during the closing months of the war [Nicolai] made a sensational escape from Germany by plane' (6). In 1922, he also produced a movie entitled Der Einstein Film, on the theory of relativity (11).

4. Hans Miihsam (1876-1957)

Mtthsam was a Berlin-born medical doctor who, after graduation in 1900, established a private practice in Berlin. According to Pais (7), Einstein first met Mtihsam in 1915 which led to 'Sunday hikes during which they discussed physics and also medical and biological problems'. Einstein published a paper with Mtihsam in 1923, related to the experimental determination of the size of pores in filters (12). This is the only research paper of Einstein's which appeared in a medical journal. Pais (7) also mentions that 'Mtihsam became Einstein's closest confidant in the Berlin days'. Eventually Mtihsam moved to Israel to escape from the Nazis and died there.

5. Janos Plesch (1875-?)

Plesch was a Hungarian-born medical doctor, who built a successful medical practice in Berlin. Einstein came to know Plesch in 1919, when the latter attended to Einstein's mother Pauline Einstein during her terminal illness. Then, for more than a quarter of a century, they remained close friends. In 1928, when Einstein collapsed during his trip to Zuoz, Switzerland, it was Plesch who diagnosed inflammation in the walls of Einstein's heart and guided the physicist to recovery. Plesch also dedicated his book, Physiology and Pathology of the Heart and Blood Vessels to Einstein. In his autobiography, Plesch had written, 'It has always struck me as singular that the marvelous memory of Einstein for scientific matters does not extend to other fields'. Einstein himself agreed with this assessment.

6. Gustav Bucky (1880-1963)

This Leipzig-born physician friend of Einstein first came to know the physicist while treating his step- daughter Ilse Einstein. Bucky was a specialist in radiology. Like Einstein, he also emigrated to the USA and settled in New York. Einstein enjoyed Bucky's friendship at social and academic levels and collaborated with him to receive a US patent for a light-intensity self-adjusting camera (a photoelectric device) in 1936 (13,14). Writing in the early 1940s, Frank (5) observed .... 'even today he (Einstein) is often in the company of his friend Dr Bucky of New York, a well-known physician and specialist in the construction of X-ray machines, and together they have devised a mechanism for regulating automatically the exposure time of a photographic film depending on the illumination on it. Einstein's interest in such inventions depends not on its practical utility but on getting at the trick of the thing'.


I conclude that, during each major period of his life (which spanned Germany, Switzerland and the USA), Einstein had close friends in the medical disciplines. Apart from providing routine diagnostic services and guidance on health problems, they served Einstein in multiple roles as mentors, confidants, intellectual sparring partners and research collaborators.

https://www1.gifu-u.ac.jp/~srikanth/sri ... riends.pdf

I conclude that, it has always struck me as singular that the “marvelous” memory of St. Einstein for scientific matters does indeed extend to the medical field.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:24 am

But, again, please don't take my word for it. I submit the following excerpts from Dr. Hom's (someone with much more impressive credentials and better written communication skills than yours truly) enlightening article for your perusal.
Radiology: Combining Quantum Theory, Medicine, and Artistic Vision

More than any other profession, radiologists and radiologic technologists put theoretical quantum physics to practical use to improve the health and lives of their patients. Although quantum light theory can explain everything from the tiniest subatomic particles to immense galaxy-devouring black holes, radiologists apply this technology at the human level to diagnose and treat disease and thus alleviate human suffering.

More than 100 years ago in 1895, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen discovered a form of radiation which had strange new properties. These new rays were so unique and mysterious that he named them “X-rays”, for the unknown. Although often described as a fortuitous discovery, chance favors the prepared mind, and Roentgen’s astute observations back then are still accurate today.

For the very first time, doctors (without using a scalpel) could see beyond the skin surface of their patients and peer deep inside the human body. It was later found that X-rays were a form of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths shorter and with energies greater than visible light. Subsequent research into particle theory by Albert Einstein and others led to the physics principles that not only laid the groundwork for state-of-the-art medical imaging but also changed the understanding of our entire universe, from the mechanics of the atom to the largest objects in the universe. In 1901, Roentgen received the very first Nobel Prize awarded in physics, an indication that his discovery of a form of invisible light was the beginning of a remarkable scientific journey.

Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity soon followed and would explain the space time continuum and the equivalence of mass and energy. Throughout his brilliant career, Einstein was fascinated and preoccupied with the strange properties of light. Einstein once said, “For the rest of my life I will reflect on what light is.” His concept of special relativity came to him when he was riding his bicycle towards a lamp post. He realized that the speed of light was the only constant for all observers and that the classic Newtonian measurements of mass, distance, and time were all subject to change at velocities approaching the speed of light. Einstein’s relativity means that the science fiction adventures of galaxy-hopping space travel in Star Trek and Star Wars are mere fantasy. The vast distances of space and the universal speed limit of light make intergalactic travel too impractical. If a hypothetical space craft approaches the speed of light, time slows, length compresses, the mass of the space craft increases, and impossibly high amounts of energy are required. At a certain point, the space craft stops accelerating, despite greater and greater energy input.

A result of Einstein’s special theory of relativity has been called the most famous equation in all of science. Energy (E) equals mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light squared (c2), that is E=mc2. This simple equation, which states that energy and mass are interchangeable quantities, is often misinterpreted as the formula of the atomic bomb. The principle of the atomic bomb is bombardment of a uranium atom with a neutron that splits the uranium atom into two smaller atoms and more neutrons that trigger a fission chain reaction. Although tremendous energy is released, it is the energy of internuclear binding forces, and there is no appreciable change in mass. A much better demonstration of E=mc2 is the physics of positron emission tomography (PET scanning), in which an electron and positron (the antiparticle of an electron) annihilate each other and convert their masses into pure light energy, consisting of photons traveling in opposite directions. This light is detected and calculated as a three dimensional image of the patient. Einstein was another founder of radiology because his theory of the Photoelectric Effect (published in 1905 and awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921) explained how X-rays interact with matter. This theory also showed that light was absorbed and emitted in discreet packets of energy, leading to the Quantum Theory revolution in physics.

Quantum Theory
This finding was unsettling for physicists who strove for precise measurements, because precision was not possible at the atomic and subatomic levels. Heisenberg showed that every experiment (and radiologic examination) is subject to limitation. Einstein objected to this inherent fuzziness, stating that “God does not play dice with the Universe.”

The Doppler Effect

Using Doppler ultrasound, a technologist can screen for: the risk of stroke from carotid artery stenosis, renal arterial causes of hypertension, abdominal aortic aneurysms, peripheral vascular disease, deep vein thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis and varices, and post-catheterization pseudo-aneurysms. Countless lives have been saved or improved because of a phenomenon originally observed in starlight. Doppler’s idea extends well beyond the sonography suite and even tells us about the origins of our universe. Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all objects observed in deep space have a Doppler red-shifted velocity that is proportional to the object’s distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. This tells us that our universe is expanding and supports the theory that the universe was created by the Big Bang, which occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.

Old Master Painters
Artists such as Rembrandt and Vermeer (17th century) were adept at depicting light to create the illusion of realistic three dimensional subjects on two dimensional canvases. These artists studied the interaction of light with their models and understood visual perception of subtle shading and light to make their artwork dramatic and convincing. Rembrandt van Rijn’s famous portraits and self-portraits displayed skill with light source positioning and intensity, later duplicated by movie director Cecil B DeMille who coined the term “Rembrandt lighting,” a technique that is still used today by portrait photographers…Experienced radiologic technologists use artistic vision when they create radiographs. By positioning and framing their subjects and by adjusting contrast and exposure, each image can be a work of art, not only pleasing to the eye but also containing a wealth of information.

Light as the Medium for Medical Imaging
Light, as visual information, is portrayed in art. Light also is the medium for medical imaging, whether in the form of a backlit film, cathode ray tube monitor, liquid crystal display screen, or plasma monitor. The eye is our most complex and highly evolved sense organ, capable of detecting subtle changes in light and color, and transferring this information (via the optic nerves and optic tracts) to the visual cortex of our occipital lobes. However, what distinguishes artists and seasoned radiology professionals from other people is post-processing (i.e., the thinking that occurs after perceiving visual data). Much of science and medicine is about logic, language, analysis, and categorization (left brain functions). However, visual processing (the artistic eye) is about conceptualization, spatial orientation, and pattern recognition (right brain functions). These right brain skills are harder to teach and measure but are just as important in radiology. With the rapid increases in digital image resolution and in the number of multi-planar images involved with each case, developing the right brain is crucial to make sense of this visual information overload. Knowingly or unknowingly, seasoned radiologists develop the right side of their brains through the experience of viewing thousands of medical images. This “artistic eye” can be further enhanced in radiologists and radiologic technologists who appreciate the techniques used by great artists. Or better yet, they can train their right brains by creating original art themselves.

Radiologists and radiologic technologists use light technology and artistic vision in their daily work. They sense subtle shades, recognize patterns, and use symmetry and balance to detect abnormalities. When this artistic skill is applied in combination with an appreciation for the underlying physics that created the images, a thorough knowledge of human anatomy, and an understanding of the pathophysiology of disease, they serve their patients by providing timely diagnosis and excellent medical care.

Dr. Mark Hom is a Johns Hopkins University trained biologist, an award-winning medical illustrator, an interventional radiologist, an educator of young doctors, an Elsevier author, and an avid fitness cyclist...

http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/radi ... -medicine/

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:39 am

[Admin Approval by SCS: Given my admonition this morning, ICfreely sent the following to me via PM asking for pre- clearance to post this here. I have reviewed it, and find that it is topic related and advances the research.]
ICfreely wrote:
A much better demonstration of E=mc2 is the physics of positron emission tomography (PET scanning), in which an electron and positron (the antiparticle of an electron) annihilate each other and convert their masses into pure light energy, consisting of photons traveling in opposite directions.
Heisenberg showed that every experiment (and radiologic examination) is subject to limitation. Einstein objected to this inherent fuzziness, stating that “God does not play dice with the Universe.”
Common Causes of False Positive F18 FDG PET/CT Scans in Oncology

PET/CT is a common imaging modality used in the evaluation of oncology patients. While being extremely sensitive to identifying sights of malignancy F18FDG is very non-specific. We attempted to provide a brief review of some of the more common processes that a nuclear radiology physician may encounter in daily clinical practice that could result in a false positive diagnosis with F18FDG PET/CT. A fundamental understanding of the limitations of this technology by the interpreting physician is necessary to avoid making inaccurate diagnosis and potentially limiting important treatments for our patients.

Radiologic imaging provides an important component to both the diagnosis and management of oncology patients…It is also useful to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy following treatment (MNCDM, 2007).(See Fig. 2)

PET/CT offers a unique approach to the diagnosis and staging of malignancy by exploiting the biochemical differences between benign and malignant cells Kostakoglu et al., 2003). FDG is an analog of glucose and is used as a marker of glucose metabolism. It is taken up in both tumor cells and cells involved in other pathologic conditions due to an overall increase in the number of glucose transporter proteins and increased intracellular hexokinase and phosphofructokinase levels, which promote glycolysis.

FDG is not only a cancer specific imaging agent, false positive results may be observed with benign diseases. False positive results are commonly observed in areas of active inflammation or infection (Gupta et al., 20000), with a reported false positive rate of 13% and false negative rate of 9% (Alavi et al., 2002). Inflammatory cells (neutrophils and activated macrophages) at the sites of inflammation or infection will show increased FDG accumulation (Alavi et al., 2002). These false-positive areas of metabolic activity have the potential for significant morbidity and mortality if not accurately recognized.

Brown adipose tissue has been reported to be observed in 2-4% of patients and is especially common to be observed in women and children during cold weather months. This tissue is responsible for cold induced and diet induced thermogenesis. Mitochondria in brown adipose tissue exclusively express the thermogenic protein, and F18 FDG uptake in this hypermetabloic brown fat can occur (Kostakoglu et al., 2003)…
Multiple nonspecific infectious/ inflammatory processes can cause increased FDG uptake and result in a false positive diagnosis for malignancy on PET/CT...

Many noninfectious inflammatory granulomatous processes can also lead to localized and disseminated inflammatory processes throughout the body that may result in focal areas of increased metabolism on PET/CT examinations resulting in a false positive diagnosis

Numerous iatrogenic may result in areas of false positive increased metabolic activity on FDG PET/CT exams. This includes increased metabolically activity resulting from injections such as diffuse muscular uptake following administration of insulin prior to the injection of FDG (Bunyaviroch and Coleman, 2005). Following the administration of colonystimulating factors, diffuse increased bone uptake has also been described (Yao et al., 1995). Post surgical changes will result in areas of increased FDG uptake including areas of prior biopsies, sites of catheter insertions, and sites of other drainage tube insertions (El-Haddad et. al, 2004). (See Fig. 7) Some of the most common iatrogenic causes of uptake on PET/CT include the response from radiation with development of pneumonitis/fibrosis, as well as talc pleurodesis (Shreve et al., 1999).

Benign tumors that result in intense FDG accumulation on PET/CT examination have been described, and these should be recognized at potential causes for a false positive diagnosis…

Correlation with the patient’s history and other imaging modalities may be necessary to suggest the correct diagnosis. Most importantly, long term stability will be seen in all of these lesions ensuring that they are benign processes. These lesions are usually misdiagnosed as malignant processes and will undergo biopsy or resection (Shreve et al., 1999; Libby et al., 2002; Yao et al., 1995).

Physicians interpreting PET/CT examinations must understand that accumulation of FDG only indicates enhanced cellular metabolism, irrespective of the nature of the cells. Areas of activated macrophages as well as metabolically active carcinomas will all accumulate FDG. Due to the limited specificity of FDG-PET/CT in excluding malignancy, FDG positive lymph nodes and metabolically active masses require histologic assessment to avoid incorrect diagnosis and potentially limiting treatment options for patients. The absences of FDG accumulation in lesions and lymph nodes is highly predictive for the absence of active disease, but false negative results can also be observed in malignancies with low metabolic activities… Overall the FDG PET/CT is a powerful new diagnostic tool that has made a significant contribution to the diagnosis and management of oncology patients.


So, among other things, “lesions are usually misdiagnosed as malignant processes and will undergo biopsy or resection” and such iatrogenic procedures “will [also] result in areas of increased FDG uptake” which may possibly lead to more false positive results. However, if you’re “lucky” enough to avoid a false positive FDG-PET/CT exam result, then you will get the proper chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy you so desperately need.

Now I’m no “Einstein” but that sounds like a bunch of weird zionce to me. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the body's use of glucose (in areas of inflammations, tumors, etc.) is indicative of the importance of glucose in the healing process? It's a wonder how people managed to live long healthy lives prior to this “marvelous” medical technology.


The histologic assessment of "cancer" is an art form unto itself.

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:21 am

I’ll refrain from commenting on these zeros of the mind in this post.
Marx, Freud & Einstein: Heroes of the Mind

Corinne Maier; Anne Simon, illus.
Review by AJ Frost

In the reactionary years of Argentina’s Guerra Sucia—“Dirty War”—the most notable political prisoner being held by the oppressive junta was Jacobo Timerman, a Jewish newspaper editor and vocal dissident. Originally a refugee from Ukraine, Timerman was among the nearly 30,000 “disappeared” individuals who caught the ire of Argentinian military leaders for his outspoken views against the right-wing government and his fervent support of Zionism. He was incarcerated and tortured. In his memoir Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number, Timerman recounted one notable exchange with his brutal, anti-Semitic tormentors:

“Argentina has three main enemies: Karl Marx, because he tried to destroy the Christian concept of society; Sigmund Freud, because he tried to destroy the Christian concept of the family; and Albert Einstein, because he tried to destroy the Christian concept of time and space.”

In the recently collected comics anthology Marx, Freud & Einstein: Heroes of the Mind , French psychoanalyst, public intellectual, and writer Corinne Maier and artist Anne Simon explore the complex epistemologies and private struggles of Marx, Freud, and Einstein. Originally a set of three separate works, Maier and Simon venture deep into the gray matter of these men, revealing what made them tick and what gave them the inspiration to seek alternatives to prevailing European dogmas, and ultimately alter the higher limits of human potential.

https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/ ... f-the-mind
Beginnings in Jewish Philosophy - Meyer Levin (1971)

Has the world gone beyond religion?

The Secular approach
…Not long ago a slogan swept the intellectual world: God is dead. It was really a reaction to a world of atomic warfare, race riots, drug addiction, hunger, and assassination. It meant that God was “dead” or absent in mankind. That was the hopeless side of the slogan. What some of the more atheistic people meant was that the very idea of God was a dead issue, and that Communism or other social movements could take over and accomplish the same ends that religion has sought in God, that men could arrive at social justice without the idea of God.

The failure of the mechanistic method

If religion must live in a world where scientific doubts have been raised by Copernicus, Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein, then secularism lives in a world that has seen Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Babi Yar, Sharpeville, Selma, Detroit, and Watts –to name only the most obvious cases. This is no century in which to appeal to the natural goodness of men.

The sanctification of life

We may again consider the view of Einstein, for in our scientific age he is, to many, the very symbol of rational idealism.

How shall we live with others in the world?

In speaking of the “intoxicated joy and amazement at the beauty and grandeur of the world,” is Einstein so far from Hasidism?

What can the Ten Commandments teach us today?

Ordinances –and interpretations

Freud sought to understand the ills of man through the basic relationship to mother and father, from infancy; he has shown us how deep, instinctual drives can create a hostility toward one parent or the other. If these problems are so deep in us, perhaps they deserve the emphasis of a Commandment. Perhaps our ancient tribal ways were based on such an intuition.

The Other

The grain of truth is of course that Marx, Einstein, and Freud were all of Jewish descent and that none practiced formal Judaism. But the whole truth is different. The impression left by such a statement is that since the greatest Jews of modern times departed from Judaism, all intelligent Jews should do the same. The plain fact is, of course, that Karl Marx was born into a converted family, his father having adopted Christianity for career reasons. Marx never discarded Judaism since he was not raised as a Jew. While Einstein and Freud did not go around wearing yarmulkes, both were active Jews all their lives, and thought and wrote profoundly on the subject of Judaism. Freud delivered his very first paper on psychoanalysis to his B’nai B’rith club in Vienna; he lived in Jewish circles; his son was a member of a Zionist youth group; and as we shall see, there was a strong connection between psychoanalytic discoveries and mystical Judaism. Einstein, whose views we have already quoted, actually campaigned with Chaim Weizmann in America for the Zionist cause, and was attached to Judaism all his life, though as a scientist he classified the early Mosaic phase as a cult religion. Both of these men were undeniably good Jews, attached to their tradition, even if “doubters.” Karl Marx, on the other hand, wrote distorted, vitriolic descriptions of Jews as greedy exploiters. He unfortunately started the Communist movement in an anti-Semitic direction which it has never entirely lost…

https://books.google.com/books?id=Lvyjt ... in&f=false
Karl Marx Is the World’s Most Influential Scholar
When compared on equal footing, Marx stands out above the crowd
By Colin Schultz
November 6, 2013

How do you judge an academic? Can you compare scholars from different fields on equal footing? Whose work had the bigger impact down field, Albert Einstein or Ada Lovelace?

These seem like impossible questions to answer, but as reported by Nature, a team of information scientists out of Indiana University, Bloomington, think they’ve found a way. And, according to them, the most influential scholar is… Karl Marx.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180947581/
Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon Might Get Cut From the AP World History Curriculum
Critics have noted that the change appears to shift the focus largely to Western history
Charles Dunst
Jun 26, 2018 1:55 PM

Going by this list, students in the course would no longer study 40 percent of the history’s influential people. Not surprisingly, among those missing the cutoff on the Time list are some of the most important figures in Jewish history: Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon (although some feature more prominently in the course than others).

(If you’re curious about the Jewish figures who still make the 1450 cutoff on the Time list, they’re Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein and Gregory Pincus, co-inventor of the birth control pill.)

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/abraham ... -1.6216779
Einstein - philosopher, saint, communist, One Worlder, scientist, plagiarist, Zionist

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:12 pm

Although I highly disagree and have many points of contention with the author I nevertheless applaud him for his scholastic efforts. There are lots of gems to be gleaned from his dissertation.

From Sin to Science: The Cancer Revolution of the Nineteenth Century - Lawrence Koblenz (2003)


This dissertation analyzes the critical importance of the late nineteenth century to the development of a novel, radical approach to cancer that continues into the twenty-first century. From the 1870s to the 1890s, physicians and the public came to understand cancer in an entirely new light, founded upon the application of scientific principles, methods, and instruments to cancer medicine as well as upon a major change in the social perception of the disease. Cancer as it was conceptualized, diagnosed, and treated prior to this revolutionary transformation will be explored. The birth of cellular pathology will set the stage for the transition of cancer from a macroscopic, eponymous malady to a microscopic, cellular disease.

The founding of an institution devoted solely to the care of cancer patients and the investigation of the disease will illustrate how societal beliefs, combined with personal tragedy, philanthropy, and medical expertise, legitimized the disease and fostered cancer research.

The histories of the cancers of two Presidents of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant and Grover Cleveland, who were diagnosed with the disease only nine years apart during these critical years, will be compared and contrasted for the insights they provide on this great transformation.

The scientific underpinnings of these changes will be examined from their roots in physics, chemistry, and biology to their applications in microscopy, anesthesia, and antisepsis. Modern cancer will be shown to be based firmly on the medical microscope and the advent of scientific surgery that occurred in the late nineteenth century.


People have absolutely no conception of the progress made by the natural sciences in the last thirty years. For physiology the decisive factors have been, firstly the tremendous development of organic chemistry, and secondly, the microscope, which has been properly used only for the last twenty years….The main thing which has revolutionised the whole of physiology and for the first time made comparative physiology possible is the discovery of the cell—in plants by Schleiden and in animals by Schwann. Everything is a cell. -Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx, July 14, 1858

The structural and functional idea of the cell was the theoretical foundation for the development of modern cancer. Cell theory, nurtured by the post-Listerian microscope, helped convert medicine from an empirical series of observations into a scientific investigation of human form and action. The physiological cell, as well as its pathological anomaly, fostered new methods of thinking about disease in general and cancer specifically. In addition, the theory of the cell emphasized a localistic view of disease, hastening the demise of constitutionalism and radically altering the practitioner’s conception of cancer. Archaic methods for the inspection of the human body and its diseases tended to favor notions of constitutionalism; cell-based microscopy boosted ideas of localism. The microscope revealed, as in other aspects of life, that the devil was in the details.

The Life and Times of the Father of Cancer Microscopy

Johannes Müller, not long after the final defeat of Napoleon I, came to the vibrant city of Berlin. He was one of many intellectuals with varied interests to gravitate to the capital city of Prussia. Several, like Müller, hailed from Bonn—Schwann, Jakob Henle, and the sharp-witted Karl Marx. Müller and his circle went to study medicine and, in particular, anatomy. Pathological anatomy, as noted in Chapter 1, was the brightest star of medicine, and Berlin had become the center of the pathological universe. Two inventions—one technological, the other conceptual—propelled Müller and his famous students into the forefront of medical history. The first was the development of the aspherical, achromatic compound lens system by Joseph Jackson Lister and others. The second was the advance of cell theory.

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... 8/download

Presidents, First Ladies and “benevolent” philanthropists going public with their “personal battles” have been instrumental in legitimizing diseases and raising awareness for treatment research.

For example:

Her Body: Making Mammograms Less Miserable
By Barbara Kantrowitz
On 10/1/07 at 8:00 PM

In 1974, First Lady Betty Ford saved the lives of millions :rolleyes: of woman [sic] with a simple act: she spoke openly about the fact that she had breast cancer and encouraged women to get mammograms, then a relatively new test. At the time breast cancer was one of those unspeakable scourges; even saying the words in ordinary conversation was considered somehow improper. After Mrs. Ford tore down this curtain of secrecy, women's health advocates took up the challenge of convincing women to get regular mammograms in order to find malignant breast cancer cells early, when there's the greatest chance of stemming their spread. Their efforts were astoundingly successful. By 2000 more than 70 percent of American women over 40 reported getting regular screening. :(

https://www.newsweek.com/her-body-makin ... ble-103231
Not So Simple: The Breast Cancer Stories of Betty Ford and Happy Rockefeller
By Barron H. Lerner, Contributor
Professor of medicine, New York University School of Medicine; Author, 'The Good Doctor'
09/26/2014 10:44am ET | Updated November 26, 2014

Just as Betty Ford's survival was not due to early detection, Rockefeller's survival (she turned 88 in June 2014) unlikely resulted from the prophylactic removal of her second breast. Early detection of breast and other cancers remains a complicated and controversial subject.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/not-so-s ... _b_5733402

The Deity is also in the details for those with eyes that see and ears that hear…

Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by Mansur » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:56 pm

ICfreely » March 24th, 2019, 11:58 pm wrote:
The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry – Rupert Sheldrake

Chapter 10 - Is Mechanistic Medicine the Only Kind that Really Works?

Placebo responses and the power of hope

“ -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
The answer may be that drug companies are victims of their own success. In 1997, direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs was made legal in the United States, and as a result US citizens have been deluged with advertisements for prescription medicines. Many of these commercials evoke uplifting associations between pills and peace of mind. The pharmaceutical industry’s advertising has been all too successful in raising expectations about new drugs, increasing the placebo response in clinical trials, and hence reducing the difference between the placebo and the drug being tested. [*][/b][/color] If materialism were an adequate foundation for medicine, placebo responses ought not to occur. The fact that they do occur shows that people’s beliefs and hopes can have positive effects on their health and healing. Conversely, despair and hopelessness can have negative effects… …Placebo responses show that health and sickness are not just a matter of physics and chemistry. They also depend on hopes, meanings and beliefs. Placebo responses are an integral part of healing.

https://eduardolbm.files.wordpress.com/ ... ldrake.pdf
[*][/b][/color] Here seems to be a considerable hiatus, or jump or evasion, in the logic: are we to believe that, in consequence of these tests, the profits of the drug companies really decreased in any period of time?

- - - - - - -

The problems in Sheldrake are not so much with what he is saying, here about “placebo”, or with his criticism of modern science in general, as rather with his “alternatives”—and more with his interpretations, let’s say, of “hopes, meanings and beliefs” (if he has any—other than “placebo responses”).

And so, his vagueness about these latter issues, his general attitude . . . it defiles his credit, even as a critic of science or as a scientist—he is a (very) evolutionary biologist, as a matter of fact.

If you already know about “placebo” (and who on Earth does not know?), his message will seem as it is—being without any real importance and radicalism.

The spirit of his criticism is just as modern as that of the science he is criticizing, as is his whole “new age” mentality. (He does really confirm all the dogmas—including, in practice, his prefabricated “ten dogmas” of modern science—on every single page of his book in a very effectual way, or rather in many effectual ways.)

In short and in my opinion, he is a control guy (“making good points”, and sharing statistics and peddling with trivia as great wisdom).

(He seems to have been greatly enjoying media platforms back from the seventies or eighties.)

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:42 am

Well said, Mansur. In reading Sheldrake, you definitely have to go through fields of weeds to get to the handful of flowers.

Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:00 pm


Remember this front cover of Time magazine?


Well, some folks are (with good reason) not impressed by Time magazine's choice for "Person of the Century"...

"Albert Einstein: Time Magazine’s Undeserving Person of the Century" - by John Wear (June 3, 2019)
http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/2/674 ... LCcHLqUulY


As for Einstein's scientific achievements, here's a well-referenced paper listing the various scientists that he plagiarized :

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? - by Richard Moody Jr (2003)

Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by Mansur » Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:58 pm

simonshack » June 9th, 2019, 8:24 pm wrote:*
I keep wondering what a true statistical study would conclude - as to the ratio of people buying (or not buying) the 50-year-old Apollo TV hoax.

Alright, so a Youtube comment section is no serious indicator of general public opinion - and can hardly be used for any "statistical" study of any kind...
I think there is no such thing as “true” or “correct” statistical study (this was “my point”.) “Think about it” as so many orator ask; how would you do it?!

So the title “How to Lie with Statistics” seems to me as much as to say “Since it is a Lie (First Be Aware of it, then) Learn How to Do the Job”, -- and most possibly, I think, the book itself too serves people more often than not in advancing to that direction. (I wonder how many let’s say of one hundred readers of the book have an honest purpose in that choice of reading. How could one do this stat?)

- - - - - - -

René Guenon calls it illusion and talks about illusion of statistics and of statisticians. [It is illusion as to science and scientists but lying as to the the propaganda (and who is by the way to make a valid distinction between the two?!) If the Intelligentsia had not entertained this illusion in themselves so heavily in all scientific fields today the propaganda would not have the efficient weapon as this against the general public.] The passage I’m going to quote below is taken from the book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of Times, 1946, from chapter 10. The Illusion of Statistics (p. 70-72) :
… The founding of a science more or less on the notion of repetition brings in its train yet another delusion of a quantitative kind, the delusion that consists in thinking that the accumulation of a large number of facts can be of use by itself as ‘proof’ of a theory, nevertheless, even a little reflection will make it evident that facts of the same kind are always indefinite in multitude, so that they can never all be taken into account, quite apart from the consideration that the same facts usually fit several different theories equally well. It will be said that the establishment of a greater number of facts does at least give more ‘probability’ to a theory; but to say so is to admit that no certitude can be arrived at in that way, and that therefore the conclusions promulgated have nothing ‘exact’ about them, it is also an admission of the wholly ‘empirical’ character of modern science, although, by a strange irony, its partisans are pleased to accuse of ‘empiricism’ the knowledge of the ancients, whereas exactly the opposite is the truth: for this ancient knowledge, of the true nature of which they have no idea whatever, started from principles and not from experimental observations, so that it can truly be said that profane science is built up exactly the opposite way round to traditional science. Furthermore, insufficient as ‘empiricism’ is in itself, that of modern science is very far from being integral, since it neglects or sets aside a considerable part of the evidence of experience, the very part that has a specifically qualitative character; for perceptual experience cannot, any more than any other kind of experience, have a bearing on pure quantity as its object, and the nearer is the approach to pure quantity the greater is the distance from the reality which nevertheless is supposed to be grasped and to be explained, in fact it is not at all difficult to see that the most recent theories are also those that have the least relation to reality, and most readily replace it by ‘conventions’. These conventions cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary, for it is not really possible that they should be so, since the making of any convention necessarily involves there being some reason for making it, but at least they are as arbitrary as possible; that is to say, they have as it were only a minimum of foundation in the true nature of things.

It has just been said that modern science, simply because it tries to be entirely quantitative, fails to take account of differences between particular facts even in cases where those differences are most accentuated, and such cases are naturally those in which qualitative elements have the greatest predominance over quantitative elements, and it can be said that this is why the greater part of reality eludes it, and why the partial and inferior aspect of truth that it can grasp in spite of all its failings (because total error could have no meaning other than that of pure negation) is reduced to almost nothing. This is more particularly the case when facts within the human order come under consideration, for these are the most qualitative of all those that modern science regards as included in its domain; science is determined nonetheless to treat them exactly like other facts, such as are concerned not only with ‘organized matter’ but even with ‘matter in the raw’, for it has in the end only one method, which it applies uniformly to the most diverse objects, precisely because, by reason of its special point of view, it is incapable of perceiving what are the essential differences between facts. And it is above all in the human order, whether in the field of history or ‘sociology’ or ‘psychology’ or any other kind of study that could be named, that the fallacious character of the ‘statistics’ to which the moderns attach so much importance becomes most apparent; here as elsewhere, statistics really consist only in the counting up of a greater or lesser number of facts that are all supposed to be exactly alike, for if they were not so their addition would be meaningless, and it is evident that the picture thus obtained represents a deformation of the truth, and the less the facts taken into account are alike or really comparable, or the greater is the relative importance and complexity of the qualitative elements involved, the worse is the deformation. Nonetheless, the setting out of figures and calculations gives to the statistician, as it is intended to give to other people, a kind of illusion of ’exactitude’ that might be called ‘pseudo-mathematical’; but in fact, without its being noticed and because of the strength of preconceived ideas, almost any desired conclusion is drawn indifferently from such figures, so completely without significance are they in themselves. The proof of this is that the same statistics in the hands of several experts, even though they may all be ‘specialists’ in the same line, often give rise, according to the respective theories of the experts, to quite different conclusions, which may even sometimes be diametrically opposed. That being the case, the self-styled ‘exact’ sciences of the moderns, to the extent that they make use of statistics and go so far as to extract from them predictions for the future (relying always on the supposed identicality of the facts taken into account, whether past or future), are really no more than mere ‘conjectural’ sciences, to use an expression freely employed by the promoters of a kind of modern astrology dubbed ‘scientific’; and in employing this term they admit more freely than many other people what their astrology really consists in, for it certainly has only the vaguest and most remote connection, perhaps no more than that of a common terminology, with the true traditional astrology of the ancients, which is today as completely lost as all other knowledge of the same order. This ‘neo-astrology’ does actually make great use of statistics in its efforts to establish itself ‘empirically’ and without attaching itself to any principle, statistics indeed playing a preponderant part in it; and that is the very reason why it is thought right to adorn it with the epithet ‘scientific’, whereby the scientific character of the true astrology is implicitly denied, and this denial is again very significant and very characteristic of the modern mentality…

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:47 pm

Here's a link to Guenon's thought provoking book with excerpts from a chapter that caught my eye.


Chapter 34 - The Misdeeds of Psychoanalysis

In passing from philosophy to psychology it will be found that identical tendencies appear once again in the latter, and in the most recent schools of psychology they assume a far more dangerous aspect, for instead of taking the form of mere theoretical postulates they are given practical applications of a very disturbing character; the most ‘representative’ of these new methods, from the point of view of the present study, are those grouped under the general heading of ‘psychoanalysis’. It may be noted that, by a curious inconsistency, their handling of elements indubitably belonging to the subtle order continues to be accompanied in many psychologists by a materialistic attitude, no doubt because of their earlier training, as well as because of their present ignorance of the true nature of the elements they are bringing into play ; 1 is it not one of the strangest characteristics of modern science that it never knows exactly what the object of its studies really is, even when only the forces of the corporeal domain are in question? It goes without saying too that there is a kind of ‘laboratory psychology’, the endpoint of the process of limitation and of materialization of which the ‘philosophico-literary’ psychology of university teaching was but a less advanced stage, and now no more than a sort of accessory branch of psychology, which still continues to coexist with the new theories and methods; to this branch apply the preceding observations on the attempts that have been made to reduce psychology itself to a quantitative science.

1. The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it be because there is something involved that is closely bound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in Jews detached from their tradition?

There is certainly something more than a mere question of vocabulary in the fact, very significant in itself, that present-day psychology considers nothing but the ‘subconscious’, and never the ‘superconscious’, which ought logically to be its correlative; there is no doubt that this usage expresses the idea of an extension operating only in a downward direction, that is, toward the aspect of things that corresponds, both here in the human being and else- where in the cosmic environment, to the ‘fissures’ through which the most ‘malefic’ influences of the subtle world penetrate, influences having a character than can truthfully and literally be described as ‘infernal ’. 2 There are also some who adopt the term ‘unconscious’ as a synonym or equivalent of ‘subconscious’, and this term, taken literally, would seem to refer to an even lower level, but as a matter of fact it only corresponds less closely to reality; if the object of study were really unconscious it is difficult to see how it could be spoken of at all, especially in psychological terms; and besides, what good reason is there, other than mere materialistic and mechanistic prejudice, for assuming that anything unconscious really exists? However that may be, there is another thing worthy of note, and that is the strange illusion which leads psychologists to regard states as being more ‘profound’ when they are quite simply more inferior; is not this already an indication of the tendency to run counter to spirituality, which alone can be truly profound since it alone touches the principle and the very center of the being? Correspondingly, since the domain of psychology is not extended upward, the ‘superconscious’ naturally remains as strange to it and as cut off from it as ever; and when psychology happens to meet anything related to the ‘superconscious’, it tries to annex it merely by assimilating it to the ‘subconscious’. This particular procedure is almost invariably characteristic of its so-called explanations of such things as religion and mysticism, together with certain aspects of Eastern doctrine such as Yoga; there are therefore features in this confusion of the superior with the inferior that can properly be regarded as constituting a real subversion.

2 . It may be noted in this connection that Freud put at the head of his The Interpretation of Dreams the following very significant epigram: Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo (Virgil ,Aeneid, vii, 312).

But this is not yet all, for one other thing under the heading of ‘counterfeit’ is perhaps even more worthy of note than anything mentioned so far, and that is the requirement imposed on anyone who wants to practise psychoanalysis as a profession of being first ‘psychoanalyzed’ himself. This implies above all a recognition of the fact that the being who has undergone this operation is never again the same as he was before, in other words, to repeat an expression already used above, it leaves in him an ineradicable imprint, as does initiation, but as it were in an opposite sense, for what is here in question is not a spiritual development, but the development of an inferior psychism. In addition, there is an evident imitation of the initiatic transmission; but, bearing in mind the difference in the nature of the influences that intervene, and in view of the fact that the production of an effective result does not allow the practice to be regarded as nothing but a mere pretence without real significance, the psycho-analytic transmission is really more comparable to the transmission effected in a domain such as that of magic, or even more accurately that of sorcery. And there remains yet another very obscure point concerning the actual origin of the transmission: it is obviously impossible to give to anyone else what one does not possess oneself, and moreover the invention of psychoanalysis is quite recent; so from what source did the first psychoanalysts obtain the ‘powers’ that they communicate to their disciples, and by whom were they themselves ‘psychoanalyzed’ in the first place? To ask this question is only logical, at least for anyone capable of a little reflection, though it is probably highly indiscreet, and it is more than doubtful whether a satisfactory answer will ever be obtained; but even without any such answer this kind of psychic transmission reveals a truly sinister ‘mark’ in the resemblances it calls to mind: from this point of view psychoanalysis presents a rather terrifying likeness to certain ‘sacraments of the devil’.

https://archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1 ... s_djvu.txt
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo. If I cannot move heaven, I will raise hell.

https://glosbe.com/la/en/flectere%20si% ... a%20movebo

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:26 am

Why War: Einstein and Freud’s Little-Known Correspondence on Violence, Peace, and Human Nature
“Every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of promise.”
By Maria Popova

Despite his enormous contributions to [PSEUDO] science, Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879–April 18, 1955) was no reclusive genius, his ever-eager conversations and correspondence engaging such diverse partners as the Indian philosopher Tagore and a young South African girl who wanted to be a scientist. In 1931, the Institute for Intellectual Cooperation invited the renowned physicist to a cross-disciplinary exchange of ideas about politics and peace with a thinker of his choosing. He selected Sigmund Freud, born on May 6, 1856, whom he had met briefly in 1927 and whose work, despite being skeptical of psychoanalysis, the legendary physicist had come to admire. A series of letters followed, discussing the abstract generalities of human nature and the potential concrete steps for reducing violence in the world. In a twist of irony, the correspondence was only published in 1933 — after Hitler, who would eventually banish both Einstein and Freud into exile, rose to power — in a slim limited-edition pamphlet titled Why War?. Only 2,000 copies of the English translation were printed, most of which were lost during the war. But the gist of the correspondence, which remains surprisingly little-known, is preserved in the 1960 volume Einstein on Peace (public library), featuring a foreword by none other than Bertrand Russell.

In a letter dated April 29, 1931, Einstein laments to Freud:
I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth [ :rolleyes: ]— a passion that has come to dominate all else in your thinking. You have shown with irresistible lucidity how inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, your convincing arguments make manifest your deep devotion to the great goal of the internal and external liberation of man from the evils of war. This was the profound hope of all those who have been revered as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country, from Jesus to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been universally recognized as leaders, even though their desire to affect the course of human affairs was quite ineffective?

I am convinced that almost all great men who, because of their accomplishments, are recognized as leaders even of small groups share the same ideals. But they have little influence on the course of political events. It would almost appear that the very domain of human activity most crucial to the fate of nations is inescapably in the hands of wholly irresponsible political rulers.

Political leaders or governments owe their power either to the use of force or to their election by the masses. They cannot be regarded as representative of the superior moral or intellectual elements in a nation. In our time, the intellectual elite does not exercise any direct influence on the history of the world; the very fact of its division into many factions makes it impossible for its members to co-operate in the solution of today’s problems.
He goes on to argue that the only positive way forward is through the establishment of “a free association of men whose previous work and achievements offer a guarantee of their ability and integrity,” envisioning the power of such a network decades before social media empowered a similar groundswell:
Such a group of international scope, whose members would have to keep contact with each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes, backed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press. Such an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to degeneration in learned societies; the danger that such a degeneration may develop is, unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. However, and despite those dangers, should we not make at least an attempt to form such an association in spite of all dangers? It seems to me nothing less than an imperative duty!


I offer these suggestions to you, rather than to anyone else in the world, because your sense of reality is less clouded by wishful thinking [ :rolleyes: ] than is the case with other people and since you combine the qualities of critical judgment, earnestness and responsibility. [ :puke: ]
The following summer, Einstein officially invites Freud to participate in the Institute for Intellectual Cooperation exchange, presenting the brief:
This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for Civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.

He explains why he has sought out Freud:
[T]hose whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the inquiry now proposed, I can do little more than to seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man’s instinctive life to bear upon the problem. There are certain psychological obstacles whose existence a layman in the mental sciences may dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and vagaries he is incompetent to fathom; you, I am convinced, will be able to suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the scope of politics, which will eliminate these obstacles.
Einstein, who describes himself as “one immune from nationalist bias,” puts forth his own ideas for what a solution might entail — an international legislative and judicial body, which would settle all conflicts by mutual consent — but is wary of the challenges to this concept:
This is a fact with which we have to reckon; law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced) insofar as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organization competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action — its sovereignty that is to say – -and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.
Long before today’s heated debates on gun control, Einstein points to pro-gun groups as a chief culprit in hindering this legislative utopia:
The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority. … Another question follows hard upon it: How is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions. … An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and makes its tool of them.
[What is this "small clique" that wields such power that Einstein is speaking of? WHO are they?]

Einstein then arrives at his main question for Freud:
Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychosis of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called “intelligentsia” that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form — upon the printed page. … But … here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.

I know that in your writings we may find answers, explicit or implied, to all the issues of this urgent and absorbing problem. But it would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action.
A few weeks later, on September 12, 1932, Einstein receives word from Leon Steinig, a League of Nations principal who facilitated the correspondence, that Freud was interested in the exchange, with the caveat that what he had to say might be too pessimistic for people’s taste but he couldn’t bring himself to sugarcoat the uncomfortable truth:
All my life I have had to tell people truths that were difficult to swallow. Now that I am old, I certainly do not want to fool them. [ :rolleyes: ]

https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/05/0 ... ein-freud/

Certainly not. I suppose pointing out the fact that Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell and Leon Steinig were all Jewish may be (mis)construed by some as a signal that I'm an "anti-Semite". So be it! Fortunately, I'm immune to such intellectually dishonest labels. :)


Politics of Emotions: How Political Leaders Manipulate Mass Psychology
Giancarlo Elia Valori | 27/03/2018

"Every political actor – especially in the sphere of foreign policy – is an engineer of mass emotions." Prof. Giancarlo Elia Valori discusses the effects of emotional contagion and other psycho-political techniques for manipulating people in the political realm.

As Leonardo da Vinci used to say, "If you are alone you belong entirely to yourself. If you are accompanied by even one companion you belong only half to yourself."

Later, in the positivist era, Gustave Le Bon – in his Psychology of Crowds – developed a concept whereby the crowd weakens all the individual’s rational abilities.

The crowd unleashes the Id, destroys the Ego and makes the unconscious prevail in history.

Freud Also shared that approach in his Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego.

Benito Mussolini was said to have a copy of Le Bon's book on the nightstand, while Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, created advertising and modern public relations in the United States. It was the same great country where, as the George Washington pulled him into New York Harbor, Freud supposedly remarked to Carl Jung, who accompanied him, "They do not realize that we are bringing them the plague."

The assumption of Bernays and the commercial and advertising public relations he created is still the positivist one: to create a feeling of pleasure (or self-esteem) and then connect an object, a role, a person or a symbol to that same perception of pleasure – in such a way that, as [Ivan] Pavlov taught us, the human brain can do without the real object and is activated anyway when a sign or a symbol is triggered off.

In fact, contemporary society is the one that has raised the symbol to the rank of the primary object of the exchange, the Ersatz, the symbolic substitute, which is much more sold and valued than the real object.

This is the reason why politics has currently taken up the same methods as marketing and advertising. Indeed, it is currently pure commercial communication and distribution of substitutes.

In fact, Bernays used to say that for his professional practice in the US companies he had used both his uncle Sigmund's theories and Le Bon’s psychology of crowds, as well as the "conditioned reflex" theory of Ivan Petrovic Pavlov, who had won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1904.


Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by ICfreely » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:54 am

Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future – Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber (2001)

Someone Else’s Mouth

Science, far from being merely a way to study the physical world, had undergone a dramatic transformation. The hard science of physics, with its precise measurements and exact mechanical laws, had become a metaphor, a model of rationality and discipline that people attempted to imitate as they studied softer subjects such as biology, language, human behavior and even behavior of entire societies. Somehow it didn’t seem to matter that one of these subjects lent themselves to be merely a methodology and had become an Ideology as well.

As an ideology, it lent itself to diverse and conflicting political uses. In England, the Utilitarians adopted an air of scientific rigors the set out to collect data in support of abolishing the British Poor Law, the welfare system of the day. In its place they imposed the more “efficient” (i.e. cheaper) workhouse system, whose vicious exploitation of the poor would later be depicted with heartrending detail in the novels of Charles Dickens. Somewhat later, the Fabian Socialists would pave the way for the British welfare state with similar assiduous compilations of meticulous, statistics-laden report, through which they aimed to establish themselves as “unofficial expert ‘clerks’ to any decision-maker hampered by lack of expert advice.” 14 The Utilitarian obsession with data collection also led to the compilation of the famous Victorian Blue Books, the densest collection of social statistics in human history, which in turn became the source from which Karl Marx drew all of the information he needed for his damning indictment of capitalism. The Marxist “science” of history and class struggle inspired the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, with its own belief in rational state power wielded by militant intellectualism. Like the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks believed that they were scientifically manipulating “objective laws of history” in order to create an ideal society. Once again, these ideals degenerated in practice into a new system of bureaucratic tyranny and repressive terror.

The “Science of Ruling” Comes to America

In the wake of the First World War, observed contemporary historian Fredrick Lewis Allen, science was “the one great intellectual force which had not suffered disrepute… The man in the street and the woman in the kitchen, confronted on every hand with new machines and devices which they owed to the laboratory, were ready to believe that science could accomplish almost anything, and they were being deluged with scientific theory. The newspapers were giving columns of space to inform (or misinform) them of the latest discoveries, a new dictum from Albert Einstein was now front-page stuff even though practically nobody could understand it. Outlines of knowledge poured from the presses to tell people about the planetesimal hypothesis on constitutions of the atom, to describe for them the daily life of the cave-man, and to acquaint them with the electron, endocrines, hormones, vitamins, reflexes and psychoses.”21

The 1920s was also the period when the psychosexual theories of Sigmund Freud found a mass audience. “Psychology was king,” Allen observes. “Freud, Adler, Jung and Watson had their tens of thousands of votaries, intelligence-testers invaded the schools in quest of I.Q.’s, psychiatrists were installed in business houses to hire and fire employees and determine advertising policies.”

The Wizard of Spin

Freud exerted particular influence on Edward L. Bernays, the man who has come to be known as the “father of public relations.” For him, for him Freud was not just a towering intellect but a family member and personal mentor. Bernays was the son of Eli Bernays and Anna Freud Bernays, Sigmund’s sister. In fact, the Freuds and Bernayses got along so well that Sigmund himself ended up marrying Martha Bernays, Eli’s sister. What this meant for Edward Bernays is that he was not only Sigmund Freud’s nephew but a nephew twice over. Through Bernays, Freud’s influence on the fledgling public relations industry was enormous, and that legacy continues today in the most familial sense at Freud Communications, a high-powered British PR firm owned by Matthew Freud, Sigmund’s great-gramdson…

https://books.google.com/books?id=_OEPB ... re&f=false
“[A]ll problems are related and they are all the progeny of certain fundamental causes,” [Saul] Alinsky elaborated.[29] “Many apparently local problems are in reality malignant microcosms of vast conflicts, pressures, stresses, and strains of the entire social order.”[30] Thus “ultimate success in conquering these evils can be achieved only by victory over all evils.”[31] In other words, what was needed was a revolution, led by radicals, to literally turn society upside-down and inside-out.

Alinsky then proceeded to lay out the method by which radicals could achieve this goal by forming a host of “People’s Organizations” — each with its own distinct name and mission, and each of which “thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.”[32]

These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, ought not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.[33]

The installment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the longtime Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes. As J. Edgar Hoover explained in his 1958 book Masters of Deceit: “To make a known Party member president of a front would immediately label it as ‘communist.’ But if a sympathizer can be installed, especially a man of prominence, such as an educator, minister, or scientist, the group can operate as an ‘independent’ organization.”[34]

Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies. The organizer, said Alinsky, must exploit the fact that “[m]illions of people feel deep down in their hearts that there is no place for them, that they do not ‘count.’”[35] To exploit this state of affairs effectively, Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers.[36]

“Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly,” he answered instantly.[37] But it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.”[38] In Alinsky’s calculus, the common man could achieve this renewed vitality of spirit via his membership and active participation in the People’s Organization.

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”[39]

To appeal to the middle class, Alinsky continued, “goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’; ‘Of the Common Welfare’; ‘Pursuit of happiness’; or ‘Bread and Peace.’”[65]

During the 1960s Alinsky was an enormously influential force in American life. As Richard Poe reports: “When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects. In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky’s circle. After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky’s shakedown.”

Alinsky died in 1972, but his legacy lives on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution (which he and his disciples euphemistically refer to as “change”). Two of his most notable modern-day disciples are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ind ... l-alinsky/

Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Unread post by patrix » Mon May 18, 2020 7:38 am

Dear Cluesforumers,

I'm currently listening to "The Great Astronomers" by Robert S Ball. A public domain Libravox recording that I can recommend (some Libravox readers are simply unbearable to listen to) https://archive.org/details/greatastron ... 1_librivox

This book however leaves big gaping holes when it comes to astronomers like Tycho Brahe and never even mentions great names like Scheiner and Riccioli. This is a book teaching the Copernican religion that has been created for us by the Jewish/British empire but I think its interesting to listen to as to understand how this religion has been created. Some of it are flat out lies, like this passage:
While the illustrious astronomer, Tycho Brahe, lay on his
death-bed, he had an interview which must ever rank as
one of the important incidents in the history of science.
The life of Tycho had been passed, as we have seen, in
the accumulation of vast stores of careful observations of
the positions of the heavenly bodies. It was not given to
him to deduce from his splendid work the results to
which they were destined to lead. It was reserved for
another astronomer to distil, so to speak, from the volumes
in which Tycho' s figures were recorded, the great truths
of the universe which those figures contained. Tycho felt
that his work required an interpreter, and he recognised
in the genius of a young man with whom he was
acquainted the agent by whom the world was to be taught
some of the great truths of nature. To the bedside of the
great Danish astronomer the youthful philosopher was
summoned, and with his last breath Tycho besought of
him to spare no labour in the performance of those calcu-
lations, by which alone the secrets of the movements of
the heavens could be revealed. The solemn trust thus
imposed was duly accepted, and the man who accepted it
bore the immortal name of Kepler,
https://archive.org/details/greatastron ... 6/mode/2up

Kepler had been assigned one job by Tycho Brahe - To figure out the movements of Mars. When Tycho mysteriously died Kepler stole his observations and concocted a Heliocentric model using absurd assumptions - planets are orbiting in elliptical paths at varying speeds, and pure fraud - he uses incorrect values for the transits of Mars.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/scie ... -says.html

Post Reply