Dear Jan,

Here is another note to answer when you get back. Sorry to give you
more work for your break, but you posted so many thoughts today that
you have me thinking.

Your post on speculation calls for a quick note on the role of
speculation in physics and in Einstein's work.

Einstein was famous for his belief in the imagination. This fact
captivates designers. Einstein was also a profoundly rigorous thinker
with a deep sense of empirical inquiry. This fact interests far fewer
designers than Einstein's love of imagination.

If you want to read want Einstein himself has to say on speculation,
heuristic inquiry, empiricism, and imagination, three important works
are currently in print. His breakthrough articles of 1905 are
available in Einstein Miraculous Year (Einstein 1998 [1905]). His
major autobiographical statement is available in Paul Schilpp's (1969
[1949]) great anthology of writings on Einstein's science and
philosophy. These were published together with Einstein's own
autobiography, replies, and a comprehensive bibliography of
Einstein's publications. The third is Einstein's (1993 [1954]) own
popular explanation of relativity theory, first published in 1916,
translated and revised several times since.

Speculation, imagination, and heuristic inquiry in Einstein's work
were intimately related to empirical inquiry. At least, this is what
Einstein said and wrote.

Einstein's imaginative breakthroughs in relativity came about because
of his powerful physical intuition. Physical intuition involves a
deep understanding of the physical universe and an intimate knowledge
of the physics that preceded his own. This includes understanding the
deep implications of prior science.

One good example of this is the way that some of Einstein's ideas on
relativity derived from Maxwell's equations. These equations
contained powerful implications waiting to be understood. Einstein
understood them. Einstein's original insight involved a series of
questions implicit in the earlier physics that Einstein mastered and
probed.

Imaginative and speculative inquiry is important for progress in all
fields. At the same time, every field is plagued by idle speculation
and weird ideas wafting into the air on any conceivable theme. Since
fruitful speculation is the source of progress and development, we
should encourage it and attend to speculative inquiry. Since idle
speculation is a waste of time, we must at some point distinguish the
fruitful from the idle. How are we to distinguish between the two
forms of speculation?

In an essay titled "how can we be sure that Albert Einstein was not a
crank?" Jeremy Bernstein (1993: 15-27) addresses precisely this
issue. Bernstein asks how we can distinguish between the idle
speculation of crank research and the fruitful speculation of the
innovator.

He proposes two criteria to separate the production of a crank from
the real thing. One criterion is "correspondence." The other is
"predictiveness."

Correspondence involves the ways in which a new proposal melds with
prior art, how a new theory explains the earlier theories and models
at a deeper and richer level. "I would insist," writes Bernstein
(1993: 18) "that any proposal for a radically new theory in physics,
or in any other science, contain a clear explanation of why the
precedent science worked. What new domain of experience is being
explored by the new science, and how does it meld with the old?"

Einstein launched his revolutionary work by demonstrating
correspondence with the physics people knew. His perception was new,
his conceptions were new, and his proposals reframed prior art.
Einstein did not end Newton's physics. He reframed it. The quantum
physics that so disturbed Einstein did not end Einstein's physics. It
grew from Einstein's work.

Einstein himself had an intriguing view of the relationship between
experience and theory - that is, the relationship between practice
and research. He held a nearly Pythagorean view of mathematics. While
the mathematics must correspond to reality, he did his work in the
mind rather than in the laboratory. This is where predictive power
arises.

Einstein proposed specific tests that could disprove his theories and
his models. This gave them predictive power. When the tests were
carried out, his theory was demonstrated as plausible. While
predictiveness is not possible in design in the same sense that it is
possible in physics, testing and reasoned response to results is
possible. At issue here is the fact that Einstein demanded that his
own speculative ideas be subject to critical inquiry and testing
before even he was ready to accept them fully. While he is famous for
confidence that his theories would pass the test, he also set the
test and asked for empirical evidence.

Einstein frequently referred to the importance of critical reasoning
based on empirical evidence and rigorous thinking. He frequently
discusses the role that empiricism played in his development. For one
crucial advance in special relativity theory, he writes that the,
"type of critical reasoning which was required for the discovery of
this central point was decisive furthered, in my case, by the reading
of David Hume's and Ernst Mach's philosophical writings" (Einstein
1969 [1949]: 53).

He was also a careful and rigorous student of earlier work. Those who
have seen the notes that Einstein took in his own doctoral studies
will discover "the notes of a conscientious student with a clear
understanding of the physics that preceded his own." This stands in
great contrast with the insistence on pure speculation unanchored in
anything other than private thought: "The typical crank appears to
regard all this apprenticeship as beneath his intellectual dignity.
He wants to go right to the head of the class. No apprenticeship for
him." (Bernstein 1993: 27)

Einstein's work was a triumph of imagination. This triumph was based
on the deep relationship between Einstein's work, the empirical
world, and earlier work. Einstein was always open to imaginative
ideas. Nevertheless, he had little time for solipsistic thinkers who
failed to engage the larger field in rigorous inquiry.

The idea that Einstein's work was met with derision is simply not so.
While Einstein had difficulties in his early academic career, these
came because of his behavior toward his old teachers at ETH, the
Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. This had to do with his
behavior, not his scientific ideas. Even those who disagreed viewed
his ideas with deep respect.

Einstein was treated as a serious researcher and scientist even
before completing his own doctoral work. For example, he was elected
to the Naturforschende Gesellschaft in Bern in 1903, two years before
finishing his PhD.

In 1905, he published five - five! - articles in the prestigious
German journal, Annalen der Physik. There is no comparable
achievement in design research. That would be something like one of
us (or more likely, Terry Love) publishing five articles in a single
issue of Design Studies or Design Issues. However, that does not
suggest the astonishing scope of Einstein's achievement or the early
respect accorded to his work by the leading physicists of his day. No
design journal has the prestige and impact in our field that Annalen
der Physik had in physics in 1905. This was the same year Einstein
completed his Ph.D. One can hardly argue that his ideas were treated
with derision.

If you want to learn how the world treated Einstein and how his ideas
came to change the world of physics, you might read Abraham Pais's
(1982) biography or Jeremy Bernstein's (2001) consideration of
Einstein's work and influence.

If you are interested to know more about the role of speculation in
physics, you do not need to attend a physics conference. You can
read. Where it comes to Einstein, Pais and Bernstein have described
his work and its influence extensively, including serious attention
to the role that speculation, imagination, and heuristic inquiry play
in Einstein's ideas. Einstein himself also wrote on this.

One difference between fruitful speculation and idle speculation
involves finding out what we want to know instead of expressing vague
interest. I am too young to remember what happened at the beginning
of Einstein's career, but I know where to find out.

Physicists today behave in much the same way that they did then.
There is speculation. There is also robust debate. The width and
breadth of inquiry and the power of the imagination is artistic. The
level of debate and inquiry is far different, however. It requires
deep knowledge of earlier work and it demands rigorous thinking.

Yours,

Ken

--

References

Bernstein, Jeremy. 1993. Cranks, Quarks and the Cosmos. New York: Basic Books.

Bernstein, Jeremy. 1996. Albert Einstein and the Frontiers of
Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coker, Jan. 2002. "Subject: Re: Speculations." PhD-Design List. Date:
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:49:32 +0930.

Einstein, Albert. 1969 [1949]. "Autobiographical Notes." In Albert
Einstein. Philosopher-Scientist. Third Edition. Edited by Paul Arthur
Schilpp. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press, 1-94.

Einstein, Albert. 1993 [1954]. Relativity. The Special and the
General Theory. Translated by Robert W. Lawson. London: Routledge.

Einstein, Albert. 1998 [1905]. Einstein's Miraculous Year. Five
Papers that Changed the Face of Physics. Edited and introduced by
John Stachel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Pais, Abraham. 1982. Subtle is the Lord. The Science and the Life of
Albert Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schilpp, Paul Arthur, Editor. 1969 [1949]. Albert Einstein.
Philosopher-Scientist. Third Edition. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court
Press, 1-94.

--

Jan Coker wrote:

If one is looking for justification for speculation then, I would be
interested to know what the Astrophysicists conferences are like in
the sense that they too are in a speculative field. From a reading of
Stephen Hawkings book, A Brief History of Time, it seemed that they
have an accepted track of speculation, and that behaviour among the
troops as it were is more like a conference of artists than a
conference of accountants. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily
politely accepting of new ideas, and as I remember, Einstein was met
with derision on his first public presentation of his postulations.
But maybe we can be a more tolerant society than the one to which he
belonged.

--

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University