An afterthought to my dissection of Lukac's essay on Mileva Maric. I'd like to bring out more strongly a point I made implicitly in relation to Lukac's Conclusion 2:
"In 3 of the 4 famous 1905 Annalen der Physik papers Mileva's substantial role is probable, but in the "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" [Special Relativity] paper any *substantial* role of Marity is improbable and unfounded." Immediately following this assertion, which is startling stronger than anything he has suggested in his earlier analysis of the documentary material, he writes "But I would not *over*emphasize Marity's role either. Nothing which I know does contradict a simple scheme in which the vast majority of ideas originated from Einstein, while Marity was better in mathematics and thermodynamics." So on the one hand he tells us that he knows nothing that contradicts a scenario in which the ideas overwhelmingly came from Einstein, while on the other hand he presents as his central conclusion that it is probable that in 3 of the 4 famous 1905 papers Mileva's role was "substantial". Now if a hitherto unheard-of (prior to the late 1980s) claim is put forward, the onus is on its proponents to provide the evidence for it (especially if it radically contradicts previous belief). If Lukacs tells us he has no evidence inconsistent with the view that the "vast majority" of the ideas in the 1905 papers came from Einstein, then he is saying he has no evidence for anything more than this. Anything else has to be greater or lesser surmise (and in his case, based on incomplete knowledge, as I have shown). So how in the name of logic can he justify having just spelled out a *conclusion* that goes considerably beyond this? This would be bad enough even if his analysis was without the significant omissions I highlighted in my previous posting. For all its apparent thoroughness and lack of partisanship, I conclude that Lukacs' essay falls considerably short of his ambition. I note that, as Stephen pointed out, Lukacs enumerated conclusions are considerably more assertive than the restrained expression of his contentions in the Abstract: "Note I cannot prove joint authorship of any Einstein paper (though I seem to have good arguments for one)." So another anomaly in the essay is the discrepancy between his modest contention in the Abstract and the relatively strong assertions in his enumerated conclusions at the end. There is also something else that is not quite right. Many of the proponents for a role for Mileva do not claim "joint authorship", only that she collaborated to a greater or lesser degree on the 1905 papers (any one of them is apparently up for grabs, with different people opting for one or another of the 1905 papers). Given that, one might have expected that his remarkably short Abstract might have been extended to cover a wider range of claims in the controversy. The Abstract, like his more restrained statement immediately following the enumerated conclusions, leaves open the possibility of Mileva's collaboration in one or more of the 1905 papers (though interestingly he rules out completely any collaboration on the Relativity paper, the very one for which most of the claims have been made!). Needless to say at this point, for reasons spelled out in detail in my last posting, I don't accept that any compelling evidence has been adduced for the more limited "corroboration" thesis. Don Allen wrote [snip]: > If there is no record of Mileva ever making a claim > that it was really "her" work then this must surely be > a first in the annals of human nature. Thanks, Don, for injecting a welcome dose of common sense into the debate, something notably lacking in the great bulk of the writings by proponents of the "corroboration" thesis. Allen Esterson. ------------------------------------- Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:21:43 -0800 Author: Don Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mileva Maric yet again > While I can't comment with sophistication on the physics mentioned in > this thread I have to ask a simple question from a human nature > perspective. Having gone through a divorce (and having seen many others > do the same) it seems impossible to imagine a scenario in which the > "injured" party accepts quietly the success of their Ex when they > contributed to that success. In other words, can anyone imagine that if > Mileva did contribute substantially to any of Einstein's work that she > would never say to anyone something like, "Oh yes, he gets all the > credit and the fame, but it was really I who gave him the idea!" Every > Ex-spouse that I have ever met (even in the most "amicable" divorces) > has always found at least one occasion to point out the weaknesses of > the other party. If there is no record of Mileva ever making a claim > that it was really "her" work then this must surely be a first in the > annals of human nature. > > -Don. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
