Mach traced the historical development of physical theories and also tried to understand the gradual development of abstract concepts and intuitions. For that, he considered how people develop such notions, especially at early ages. Mach even gave examples from what he had observed in his son. For example, he wrote: “Almost every new fact necessitates a new adaptation, which finds its very expression in the operation known as judgment. This process is easily followed in children. A child, on its first visit from the town to the country, strays, for instance, into a large meadow, looks about, and says wonderingly: ‘We are in a ball. The world is a blue ball.’ [note: This case is not fictitious, but was observed in my three-year old child.] Here we have two judgments. What is the process accompanying their formation?” 22 Mach discussed how concepts are gradually formed in the mind of a child, how such concepts are distinct from perceptions or images, and how they are independent of words. Those are the kinds of distinctions that Einstein later echoed.
Einstein also read works by the German physician and physicist, Hermann von Helmholtz, who had cultivated interest in the growth of concepts in children. Significantly, Helmholtz argued that a person's knowledge of the principles of geometry and mechanics stems not from any transcendental source, but from ordinary everyday experiences.23 Helmholtz repeatedly expressed his interest in the “stages of development of our mental life,” and in the formation of basic concepts or intuitions. To that end, he studied, for example, experiments in physiological optics. In 1878, at the University of Berlin, Helmholtz gave a speech titled “On the Facts of Perception,” which later circulated widely. He argued:
The newborn human child is extremely unskilled at seeing; it requires several days before it learns to judge the direction of the visual image towards which it must turn its head so as to reach the mother's breast. To be sure, young animals are much more independent of individual experience. What, however, is this instinct which directs it? Is direct inheritance of the parents' circles of representation possible? Does it concern only pleasure or displeasure, or a motoric drive, which attach themselves to certain aggregates of sensation? About all that we know as good as nothing. Plainly recognizable residues of these phenomena still occur in humans. In this area, clean and critically conducted observations are highly desirable.24
The first and last lines of this quotation sound much like the words from Einstein's letter from 1902: “Can she already turn her eyes well toward anything? Now you can make observations.” We don't know if Helmholtz influenced Einstein, but the similarity is noteworthy.
So we find a common interest in childhood learning in Baldwin, Mach, and Helmholtz. How did they get their interest? There are some leads to follow, but consider just one. Baldwin noted that he became interested in the formation of the mind by studying how children learn partly owing to Darwin's theory of evolution. Thanks to the success of Darwin's works, notions of evolution became increasingly applied in the social sciences.
In his book of 1872, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin analyzed the evolution of notions in children. He analyzed how emotions are manifested in animals, humans, and in children to figure out how emotions echo evolutionary history. Darwin collected data on how infants act and react and he made and reported systematic observations of his own children. He observed when infants' vocal sounds become expressive, when infants begin to blush, how they react when startled, what sounds and visual stimuli make them blink, and more. And one noteworthy point is this: that Darwin emphasized that while babies cry since birth, they learn to smile gradually, and to laugh only much later, after three or four months in the case of his own children.25 That very point was raised by Einstein in his letter of 1902. Again, it is surprising to see that it had actually shown up in the fledging literature on developmental psychology.
Furthermore, before 1905, Einstein was very familiar with the writings of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, especially his work of 1851, on maxims of life. There, Schopenhauer argued that children are not merely occupied by individual objects, but also that in their early years children are intensely occupied in analyzing their sensations, “and without any clear consciousness of what it is doing, the child is always silently occupied in grasping the nature of life itself—in arriving at its fundamental character and general outline by means of separate scenes and experiences; or, to use Spinoza's phraseology, the child is learning to see the things and persons about it sub specie aeternitatis—as particular manifestations of universal law.”26
Thus Schopenhauer too was interested in how children learn. Was Einstein concerned with universal laws as a child? If you believe him, yes, because he told his stepson-in-law that “since earliest childhood he had always shown an attraction toward the universal.”27 Schopenhauer continued:
The younger we are, then, the more does every individual object represent for us the whole class to which it belongs; but as the years increase, this becomes less and less the case. That is the reason why youthful impressions are so different from those of old age. And that is also why the slight knowledge and experience gained in childhood and youth afterwards come to stand as the permanent rubric, or heading, for all the knowledge acquired in later life—those early forms of knowledge passing into categories, as it were, under which the results of subsequent experience are classified; though a clear consciousness of what is being done, does not always attend upon the process.28
Einstein agreed with Schopenhauer (and Mach and Helmholtz) that intuition was the kind of knowledge that develops, especially at early ages, by direct personal experience and reflection, not from education. In the process of scientific creativity, as Einstein emphasized to Moszkowski, “the really valuable factor is intuition!”29 According to Peter Michelmore, who interviewed Einstein's son, Einstein's “imagination conjured up the various approaches. His intuition told him when he was on the right track. It was that way with Relativity.”30
Another piece of evidence is that throughout his life, Einstein emphasized the essentially artificial character of the fundamental elements of physical theories. He argued that creativity consists of the “free play” of concepts. Consider the famous thought-experiment in which Einstein, at the age of sixteen, imagined that he chased light. That experiment marked the beginning of a ten-year odyssey that resulted in relativity. Einstein described it as a “childish thought-experiment.”31 This license to playfully manipulate, modify, and rearrange concepts was encouraged by his childlike approach to physics.
And there's more. Looking back, Einstein recalled that his Olympia Academy “delighted with a childlike joy in all that was clear and reasonable.”32 And throughout the years, he maintained a playful interest in how children learn.33 But let's sum up:
♦ Einstein stated that the distinctive factor that led him to relativity was childish thinking.
♦ From about 1902 through 1905, his favorite method of analyzing fundamental notions was to ponder how notions develop in children.
♦ To some extent, Einstein was interested in observations of children.
♦ Some of Einstein's favorite readings highlighted the formation of concepts through ordinary experiences, especially in childhood.
♦ In the process of scientific creativity, Einstein often emphasized the importance of intuition, as developed especially in childhood.
So what am I saying? That Einstein's breakthrough to relativity came essentially from child psychology? No. What I've shown is that Einstein's words to James Franck make historical sense. There was actually a significant growing tradition of researchers, even physicists, who seriously turned to the analysis of children's behaviors to understand the formation of fundamental notions. My point is not that the most important factor in Einstein's creativity was developmental psychology. There is evidence, however, that this played a larger role than, say, new timing technologies, art, religion, or his wife.
While childish thinking, on the basis of the documentary evidence, played an important role in Einste
in's creativity, there were other factors for which there is even more evidence. I will not discuss them here, but we should at least mention them. In particular, Einstein often acknowledged the foremost influence of H. A. Lorentz's works in physics. He also reflected on various experiments, and his critical outlook was influenced by the writings of Hume, Mach, and Poincaré.
The reason why we can construct convincing narratives about the importance of one or another “key” component in someone's creativity is because there is often an abundance of evidence, such that one freely grabs pieces to cite and emphasize. Ultimately, the goal is to pull together all the various kinds of evidence but also to weigh the relative influences of the various factors. What we find depends on what we look for, but the evidence itself can lead us to places we did not anticipate. The value of really understanding someone's creative paths is that such paths might teach us some productive ways to think.
Darwin's constant productivity, for example, greatly impressed Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently conceived the notion of evolution by natural selection. In a review of the book on The Expression of Emotions, Wallace praised Darwin for never having lost the full force of “the restless curiosity of the child.”34
Likewise, owing to his childish thinking, Einstein believed that education should not begin from books or generalizations, but from particular experiences. He wanted children's education to be based on concrete experiences that would lead to abstract concepts. As he told Moszkowski:
The first beginnings should not be taught in the schoolroom at all, but in open Nature. A boy should be shown how a meadow is measured and compared with another. His attention must be directed to the height of a tower, to the length of his shadow at various times, to the corresponding altitude of the Sun; by this means he will grasp the mathematical relationships much more rapidly, more surely, and with greater zeal, than if words and chalk-marks are used to instill into him the conceptions of dimensions, of angles, or perchance of some trigonometrical function. What is the actual origin of such branches of science? They are derived from practice, as, for example, when Thales first measured the height of the pyramids with the help of a short rod, which he set up at the ultimate point of the pyramids shadow. Place a stick on the boy's hand and lead him on to make experiments with it by way of a game, and if he is not quite devoid of sense, he will discover the thing for himself. It will please him.35
14
Eugenics and the Myth of Equality
WHEN you go to the supermarket, you can see that the tomatoes are round, smooth, very red, and not nearly as bitter as you might imagine. Can we make them better? Yes, and we already have: those tomatoes have been engineered systematically to be redder, sweeter, and to last longer. Tomatoes have been improved to withstand various germs, bugs, and disease. Similarly, breeders create dogs with tailored characteristics such as modified bodies, hair, and teeth. Dogs descended from wolves, we hear, yet dogs are easier to get along with. You can have one in your house without constantly worrying that it will kill you. Not only are most dogs smaller and therefore less dangerous than wolves, their behavior is also different. They're trustful, playful, and attentive. How did they get those behaviors? We might imagine that maybe dogs were bred from an ancient species of wolves that were naturally friendly to humans. We might imagine that although breeders modified the physical traits of that species, its behavioral traits remained utterly unchanged. But maybe not. Maybe breeders modified the behavioral traits too. After all, some breeds of dogs have different behaviors, don't they? If we can do that with wolves, and since we can make better tomatoes, then what about humans? Can we improve human behaviors by selective breeding?
Throughout history, some people have believed that not much can be done to change human nature, our innate tendencies. Many teachers accept that children are born with different talents, which can be identified and cultivated but not essentially changed. For example, Pythagoras allegedly examined his prospective disciples thoroughly to find their innate and hereditary talents in order to decide what each should study: “he inquired about their relation to their parents and kinsfolk…. He considered their frame's natural indications physionomically, rating them as visible exponents of the invisible tendencies of the soul.”1 Allegedly, Pythagoras had proclaimed: “You cannot make a Mercury of every log,” that is, “Not every mind will answer equally well to be trained into a scholar.”2 It is interesting to see how widely such ancient notions still propagate, for example, my mother has told me an amusing Spanish saying, Latinized: “Lo que natura non da, Salamanca non presta”—what nature gives not, the University of Salamanca cannot lend either.
However, the notion of evolution increasingly challenged the idea that human nature is immutable. According to Darwin, humans were not always as they are—a grotesquely ridiculous idea to many people in Victorian England. Some of Darwin's peers became convinced of evolution, but others were deeply disturbed by it. Captain FitzRoy, for one, regretted that Darwin's work was a byproduct of the Beagle voyage. He denounced it as incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible. Owing also to other misfortunes, FitzRoy became increasingly depressed and disturbed, and in 1865, he committed suicide: he cut his throat.3 Originally, FitzRoy had asked Darwin for company during the Beagle voyage partly because he feared that he might have inherited the insanity of an uncle who had killed himself. Is insanity inherited?
If humans evolved from animals, then they evolved from animals that did not behave the way we do. Maybe environments plus selective mating gradually produced the human behaviors that now seem natural to us. But if so, should humans control their own evolution? This question was investigated by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.
In the 1840s, Galton studied mathematics at Cambridge University. He wanted to earn a degree with honors, but his studies were so intensive and exhausting that he suffered a nervous breakdown, and settled for merely passing. Afterward, he inherited monies from his father that enabled him to freely pursue his interests. He loved to quantify things, and he wanted to apply mathematics for the good of mankind.
Anthropologists had tried to establish correlations between people's bodies and their behaviors. They measured bodies, profiles, and bumps on people's heads, yet they failed to find the biological bases of behavior. Galton too became increasingly fascinated by the quantification of human traits. Traveling in Africa, he discreetly measured the shapes of women's bodies. He later attempted to numerically analyze fingerprints as he became an early advocate for using fingerprints to identify criminals.
Owing partly to his interest in Darwin's theory of evolution, Galton became curious about whether mental abilities are inherited. There was a view that great men tend to have stupid sons. Or were geniuses related? So, Galton studied biographical encyclopedias to count family relations among prominent statesmen, jurists, military leaders, scientists, and artists. He found that a surprisingly high number of them were related. He was especially impressed by the recurrence of scientific and artistic achievements among blood relatives, because in such fields, nepotism and social forces were not as strong as in politics and social institutions. He concluded that heredity affected not only physical features, but also talents.
Galton acknowledged that social advantages, of course, help individuals gain opportunities and recognition but he claimed that such advantages were insufficient to explain the extent of success among blood relatives. He published his conclusions in his book Hereditary Genius in 1869.4 Darwin, who believed that men differed not mainly in inborn mental talents but in dedication and efforts, became convinced by studying Galton's work that genius tends to be inherited.5
According to Galton, education was not the cause of intelligence. At the time, education for the middle and lower classes in Great Britain was not as good as education in America. Yet the Americans, he argued, did not produce better masterpieces of literature, philosophy, and art. He therefore concluded that some talents were inherited. Yet historian Daniel Kevles has noted that
Americans at the time did not fuss as much with canonically high art because they were busy building their nation. Moreover, the biographical encyclopedias used as data by Galton were not a fair measure of the population's talents; Kevles explained that Galton confused individuals' reputation as an indication of their natural abilities.6
Regardless, Galton was aware that the lower classes in Great Britain were reproducing at a greater rate than the more privileged. While he and his wife were unable to have children, immigrants and poor people seemed to flood the cities. Thus Galton feared that Britain's talents would diminish over time, while incompetence, frailties, and poverty multiplied. He disagreed with Thomas Malthus's call for reproductive restraint, because only moral and capable individuals would exercise such restraint, diminishing only their own numbers. Civilization seemed to have an indisputable effect: it deterred the operation of natural strife among humans. Thus, natural selection seemed to fail in the case of humans. The “unfit” were propagating.
Breeders, it was well known, were remarkably successful at controlling the traits of dogs, horses, and pigeons. Accordingly, Galton expected that human qualities too, even mental talents, could be improved by selective breeding. He hoped to find mathematical laws of heredity, to find the laws of nature that would save mankind.
Science Secrets Page 24