> Einstein reports Hume's influence on him and says that without Hume it's possible he would never have come up with relativity. That's as solid evidence of a link as could exist.
I see what you're saying. If Einstein attributes his thinking to Hume's influence, nobody can deny it. That's true of admissions in a court of law, however, our understanding of how scientific ideas are generated lacks the same certainty. Personal reflection is no guarantee of insight into the formation of ideas.
Einstein's acknowledgement of Hume as an intellectual predecessor tells us he admires Hume. It doesn't tell us where Einstein's own thoughts came from. Our knowledge of neurology isn't advanced enough to draw that conclusion.
What are you trying to say? It seems like the point you're making is that given a certain standard we are not able to say how someone's thoughts came to be for certain. But how is this a relevant or interesting point?
I am responding to dang's statement about Einstein's own analysis of the aetiology of his theory, for which he Einstein credits the influence of Hume.
Dang says "That's as solid evidence of a link as could exist."
I don't think it is the most solid evidence that could exist.
We don't even know how theories are formed in the mind, and we don't know the data format used by the brain. One day, we might be able to observe that empirically, in the same way we can examine source code versions of computer software in order to make informed statements about the aetiology of forked code. Today, we can't do that.
We can only guess at the origins of people's thoughts, and when the thoughts come from our own selves, no advantage or insight is conferred. That is considered in the Scientific American essay I linked to above. Do you have any constructive criticism to offer about that essay?
Einstein noted the limitations of this ontological discussion as well, in the preface clause of his remarks to Besso "In so far as I can be aware, the immediate influence of D Hume on me was greater."
My point is that Einstein's awareness, like your own and my own awareness of where our own thoughts come from, is slim. That's an entirely different thing to wanting to associate ourselves and our ideas with great figures in history. On that point, Einstein and I both know that great minds think alike.
I see what you're saying. If Einstein attributes his thinking to Hume's influence, nobody can deny it. That's true of admissions in a court of law, however, our understanding of how scientific ideas are generated lacks the same certainty. Personal reflection is no guarantee of insight into the formation of ideas.
Einstein's acknowledgement of Hume as an intellectual predecessor tells us he admires Hume. It doesn't tell us where Einstein's own thoughts came from. Our knowledge of neurology isn't advanced enough to draw that conclusion.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/there-is-no-such-...