Folly of geniuses …
is that they consider themselves expert in everything, because they are the undisputed experts in some things.
And apparently Einstein was not immune to this … disease of the mind:
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
When Einstein speaks on a scientific matter, he deserves all the attention one can pay—although he was occasionally wrong (EPR paradox and existence of blackholes) his genius earned that much respect. But, when he writes on a subject outside physics, then he is as smart as the next guy with 2-digit IQ.
This warning was uttered more than two millennia ago, supposedly by Socrates (see point 10). And it appears Einstein may have been aware of this warning. Then why did he choose to ignore it and so blatantly? Is it human nature to be stupid?
“…he is as smart as the next guy with 2-digit IQ…”
Blatantly false. Einstein was capable of deeply logical reasoning (which most people aren’t capable of), general problem-solving, and had a wide range of experiences (living in multiple countries, speaking multiple languages, having discussions with people from all walks of life, etc.) inaccessible to most men or women.
Your only real specialty is physics, and you have no problem expressing your views on a variety of subjects you know very little (certainly less than Einstein) about.
Well, perhaps “as smart as the next guy with 2-digit IQ” is too harsh, but my (and Socrates’) main point is this: when an expert—even a very smart expert like Einstein—speaks on a subject outside his area of expertise, he must speak as what he is: a layperson with no special knowledge in the area he speaks now. To claim expertise or special insight in political science because one has expertise in physical science is simple intellectual dishonesty and self-deception.
Of course, I don’t claim that physicists (BTW, who says my only real specialty is physics? Physics is my favorite specialty, if I can say that at all, but not the only one) cannot speak on other subjects. I only claim that when physicists speak on other subjects, they must speak as a layperson, i.e. they cannot speak from their own authority; they must prove and backup their claims using work of the experts.
BTW, I think logic and problem-solving skills are overrated—almost as much as Einstein himself. After all, if all the social problems were about problem-solving skills, we wouldn’t need wars now, would we?
First of all, Einstein had plenty of expertise in political science, and the direct practice of politics and diplomacy. Read his biography.
Nowhere in the article does he claim expertise in political science as a consequence of his expertise in physical science.
Einstein’s achievements are quantifiable. It’s not clear how he’s overrated, other than his name being synonymous with “very intelligent” — he wasn’t actively seeking that, but his quirky appearance and relative importance in 20th century physics contributed to it.
“if all the social problems were about problem-solving skills, we wouldn’t need wars now, would we” — are you implying that wars are a necessity? Or is this just a strawman argument? No, we don’t need wars, and we never needed wars. Wars result from unfortunate circumstances, and yes, one of such circumstances is the lack of logical reasoning on behalf of those who start or provoke wars.
P.S. Physics may not be your only specialty, but you have no credentials to show for anything else. Yet in your blog, you write on a variety of topics with an assumed air of an expert, and sometimes calling on various categories of people to shut up. Case in point: calling on scientists to shut up about Creation. That makes no sense. Sure, a scientist has not a slightest idea of whether and how Creation occurred. But neither do clergymen. Why should clergymen be freely speaking on this matter, but scientists discouraged from doing so?
Well, as I quoted, this is what he says at the start:
I suppose there are two ways to take this comment. The first way is this: Even though Einstein is not an expert on economic and social issues, because of his infinite wisdom, it is advisable and beneficial for him to speak (and this is the way I took it initially), and by implication, he would be saying that his right to be heard is based on his proven expertise, physical sciences. This is the way I took it, at least at first, and as I have said, I strongly disagree with this sentiment (whoever may hold such sentiment), since one man can have all the knowledge and expertise in one field and be utterly ignorant in another.
The second way to interpret it is this: In general, it may be beneficial for a non-expert (such as citizens at large who may not even hold any Ph.D. or haven’t earned Nobel prizes) to speak, perhaps to provide diversity of opinion (after all, experts can get into a mindset of groupthink and overlook crucial points). I think I can agree with this sentiment, as long as no one tries to leverage their prestige in a completely unrelated field to give undue weight to their opinion.
It is possible that I misunderstood Einstein on my first skim of his essay. And since you admire him so much, let me quote some of his words back to you:
Einstein is essentially saying the same thing I just said: if problem-solving were all that’s necessary to solve social problems, wars (and other atrocities) would not happen—and neither would they become necessary, the way it was necessary for U.S. to fight WWII.
If it is indeed the case that Einstein meant his first sentence in the second interpretation above, then my condemnation of him as idiot with 2-digit IQ was unfair and wrong—that condemnation should have been reserved for those who use Einstein’s good name to push their socialistic agenda, pretending that because Einstein has had great successes in science and math, his opinion on social matters somehow matter more than others’.
In the end, my point stands: science is overrated, and scientists and engineers must be humble—admit that you are not experts in everything and that you simply have no answers (only opinions, for whatever they are worth) on some of the life’s and society’s most fundamental questions and problems.
P.S. I have no credential to claim expertise in physics either—I do have a B.A., but given how easy it is to get a B.A., any idiot with 2-digit IQ could have done it. And I haven’t earned my Ph.D. yet, if Ph.D. is somehow worth more than a B.A. Just in case I have given wrong impression, let me be clear: everything on this blog, unless I source and cite the evidences which back up my claim, are offered as opinions, nothing more. Some may agree with my opinions, others may not. I do not claim that my B.A. somehow gives my opinion more weight than anyone else’s. I do not claim that because I know a thing or two about atomic magnetometers, I have any clue about the meaning of life. And I think anyone who claims any such similar thing is being intellectually dishonest.
Regarding topics of creation, perhaps you misunderstood my statement
Where good science does not give a clear answer, good scientists must be silent—or if they must speculate, be clear that they are only speculating. When scientists try to use shaky theories to shake the fundamental beliefs, they lose public support and credibility (see: anthropogenic global warming debate).
And I am not sure if I said clergy could speak on matters of creation outside the spiritual realm (i.e. what’s in Genesis, in case of Abrahamic faiths). I absolutely do not believe clergy can speak competently on scientific theories that touch on matters of creation. I do not believe a clergyman with no training in science or biology can speak competently regarding evolution. I do not believe a clergyman with no training in general relativity can talk about the Big Bang (yes, Catholic Church’s support of Big Bang theory is meaningless).
All I am asking for, especially from scientists, in the end, is some humbleness (I guess I’m fighting fire with fire here, i.e. arrogance with arrogance) and respect for the expertise of our counterparts. Scientists have done some things well, but that does not mean they can do everything well.