Scientists Must Stand Up for Internationalism ...This is a simpler explanation -- Einstein did not consider himself a German.
Scientists should therefore be extremely concerned that the burgeoning national populist attacks on globalism will ultimately impair scientific progress—if they have not already. Funding for international scientific projects could wither, and foreign scientists may become unwelcome in nations other than their own, restraining information exchanges. We might even witness a reversion to the scientific fragmentation of the 1930s, when some eminent German physicists championed “Deutsche Physik” as superior to that of other nations.
To his great credit, Albert Einstein flatly rejected such nationalistic rhetoric. During World War I, he refused to add his name to the Manifesto of the 93 German Intellectuals, which touted German cultural superiority; instead, he embraced internationalism. When the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, he was in the United States, and soon decided not to return to Germany.
Einstein lived in Italy for a while as a teenager. He was educated in the French part of Switzerland. He was working in Switzerland when he published his famous papers. His first wife was Serbian. He was a Zionist all his life.
As California Representative Adam Schiff said before the U.S. Senate on January 24, "The truth matters." ...Whoa! Is he trying to say we should impeach and convict President Trump, and let Deep State hawks revive the Cold War?
In doing so, scientists can help lead the world back to the rational, rules-based order that has characterized diplomatic relations for decades.
SciAm has always had a left-wing political slant, but this is bizarre. Citing Einstein on nationalism and Schiff on truth? Just what is that "rational, rules-based order"?
If scientists TRULY believe they are *ahem* 'citizens of the world', might I ask three painfully relevant questions that might poke a few holes in their lofty claims:
ReplyDelete1. Where do you pay your taxes?
2. Who funds your research?
3. Why Do you think your very narrow expertise bestows
you with the right to lead without consent of governed?
I'm willing to bet precious few scientists can actually claim they don't know where they pay their taxes and who funds their mostly useless research.
I do not need to be lectured about history by halfwit technocrats who would poo-poo yesterday's inferior 'nationalistic German cultural superiority' with their new and improved du jour 'internationalist cultural superiority'. Technocrats are by their own definition totalitarian...but that's OK because SCIENCE? No. I think not.
One decent plumber is of far greater worth to human civilization, health, safety, and well being, than a hundred government fund sucking scientists.
CFT, you always write interesting and well-worded responses - do you have a blog?
ReplyDeleteDave R,
ReplyDeleteI do not have a blog. I have considered one at at times, but several cautionary concerns rise to the top of a short list, mainly, being skeptical can
1. get you fired
2. prevent you from getting hired
3. destroy your reputation without evidence
and
4. attract more manure and malice than I can possibly wade through...even with hip boots and stilts.
Personally, number 4 terrifies me the most.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Voltaire