Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists

Paul Crowley (
Tue, 02 Jul 96 23:26:48 GMT

In article <4r7cus$> "david l burkhead" writes:

> In article <> writes:>

> >quoting it at you. It's basic message is that Max Planck was right
> >when he wrote: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
> >its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its
> >opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is
> >familiar with it."
> I've seen that "quote" many times. I've never seen an original
> source for it those. To me, that makes it at least potentially
> apocryphal.

I have given this reference to you before:
Max Planck: "The Philosophy of Physics" Allen & Unwin (1936) p. 90.

> OTOH, it really doesn't matter. If he actually said it,
> he was wrong.

It is quoted so much because it is (almost universally) recognised as
being true. Once again David L. Burkhead is right and everyone else
(such as all the dictionary editors) are wrong. Ah well, it must be
nice to be the only one in step.

> >was only one of his class who couldn't get a teaching job. His
> Source?

You can read about it in any of the numerous biographies of Einstein.
One I have to hand is "Subtle is the Lord . ." by Abraham Pais
Oxford University Press, 1982. Page 40

> >Physics professor told him "You are a smart boy, Einstein, a very
> >smart boy. But you have one great fault: you do not let yourself be
> >told anything". My points are: (a) to deny what you asserted and
> Another "quote" without a tracable source.

Op. cit. page 44.

> >> BTW, if he _hadn't_ had the training in physics and mathematics
> >> it's highly unlikely he would have been able to understand those
> >> papers.
> >
> >Einstein was ahead of his Physics teachers before he started receiving
> >instruction from them. He *had* to be.
> Because you say so? Drivel. I haven't seen anything remotely
> resembling evidence to support this claim--not from you anyway.

Read any bio on him. op. cit. will do.