"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." - Albert Einstein Do you agree with Einstein's views on this matter?
2007-09-11 04:34:17 · 20 answers · asked by Link 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
As an example, he goes on to say - "How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"
2007-09-11 04:46:42 · update #1
This isn't an "indictment" of science on Einstein's part. He's simply saying that scientific descriptions of things, because "universal" and objective, don't take into account their particular subjective meaning for any given individual. You could explain a symphony in terms of variations of wave pressure, or a human being in terms of the composition of chemicals that make up his body; but you haven't explained what it's like to listen to that symphony or to know that man.
2007-09-11 04:43:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the thing is greater than the sum of accumulated data and content you could gather about it.
Beethoven's symphony means little in the form of pure data (variations of air wave pressure).
True understanding does not come from the mind. A pair of top dancers who understand each other move as if they were one. The same with a top rider and a horse. They do not shove or interfer with each other...they are in perfect harmony.
It can not be understood mentally...let alone scientifically...what is understood that allows them to act as one. The top rider or dancer can not explain exactly what they are doing...they just do it.
~ Eric Putkonen
2007-09-11 11:45:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Already, we have a better biological understanding of love than we did in Einstein's day. To be fair to him, biology wasn't nearly developed enough at the time for him to have any clue what would happen post-Watson and Crick, of course.
As for a symphony, well, I have to disagree with him. While aesthetics may or may not have some sort of universal objective component to it (probably mathematical in nature--any real composer can tell you there are elements to good music that can be analyzed), 'unweaving a rainbow' in no way diminishes its beauty and in many ways opens the rainbow up to a more thrilling, more awe-inspiring analysis.
Even the simplest science ought to awe us more than the most involved mythology.
2007-09-11 11:56:11 · answer #3 · answered by Minh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, for two reasons:
1) Describing a symphony in terms of variations in wave pressure would in no way interfere with my pleasure in listening to it - unless, somehow, I was no longer allowed to experience it in the way it was intended because I chose to analyze it.
2) I believe there is a non-material component to Creation. Science is not designed to handle things of that nature.
2007-09-11 11:42:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, as you could also describe why, scientifically, the symphony was enjoyable (or not). True the "beauty" of the symphony may be lost to some if it were described by different branches of science but it and its interpretations would not lost.
2007-09-11 11:44:13 · answer #5 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science grows and learns. In the current stage the scientists are as self assured as they were at the beginning of the 20th Century that they know just about everything already.
But at this stage of the game certainly everything can't be understood scientifically.
2007-09-11 11:46:06 · answer #6 · answered by Jack P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. That's his personal assumption. Einstein isn't the end all knowledge of the universe (I have problems with his theory of relativity). I think everything can be explained with science, and it's how you perceive those processes that you find the beauty in what you are explaining.
2007-09-11 11:41:57 · answer #7 · answered by Master C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably. Science looks to answer questions about how the natural world works and tries to make predications on how it will work in the future.
I won't describe the taste of my dinner in terms of chemistry and biology but a food producer could.
2007-09-11 11:44:43 · answer #8 · answered by Alan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Everything can be understood scientifically. He was referring to secondary descriptions of how they are percieved or felt. He had become a cranky old man by then and was very upset that other scientists were getting more attention.
2007-09-11 11:41:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, everything can be understood scientifically. Maybe not yet, or by beings who are bound by physicality.
No. I do not agree with Einstein.
And he was wrong about faster than light travel. Hello, it's called WARP drive!!
2007-09-11 11:42:24 · answer #10 · answered by coralsnayk 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋