
Einstein Reads ‘The Common Language of Science’ (1941) - danso
http://www.openculture.com/2013/03/listen_as_albert_einstein_reads_the_common_language_of_science_1941
======
tokenadult
Thanks for sharing the link. The book that includes the published version of
this essay, _Out of My Later Years,_ was on my living room bookshelf just now.
My late dad bought the book in April 1951 during his college days, as he
studied the philosophy of science, a topic Einstein wrote a lot about. It's
very interesting to hear these words read in Einstein's own voice. I ran
downstairs to bring the book up next to my computer as the audio was playing.
(And now I know how "Euclidean" is pronounced in German, as I had guessed just
the other day while thinking about the pronunciation of the name "Euler.")

Another passage from Einstein, also from a book I had at home growing up, can
be found on my personal website[1], where Einstein describes his school
experiences in a quotation from his longest autobiographical writing.

[1]
[http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html](http://learninfreedom.org/Nobel_hates_school.html)

------
rimo
Einstein has a wonderful accent.

~~~
1stein
am i in an alternate universe, or did you just edit your comment? :)

~~~
phreeza
Comments can be edited.

~~~
1stein
i know, i was just attempting a joke. disregard the green.

------
mrleinad
His voice is the archetypal of the mad German scientist

------
userulluipeste
The recited text:

 _The Common Language of Science

The first step towards language was to link acoustically or otherwise
commutable signs to sense-impressions. Most likely all sociable animals have
arrived at this primitive kind of conimunication--at least to a certain
degree. A higher development is reached when further signs are introduced and
understood which establish relations between those other signs designating
sense impression. At this stage it is already possible to report somewhat
complex series of impressions; we can say that language has come to existence.
If language is to lead at all to understanding, there must be rules concerning
the relations between the signs on the one hand and on the other hand there
must be a stable correspondence between signs and impressions. In their
childhood individuals connected by the same language grasp these rules and
relations mainly by intuition. When man becomes conscious of the rules
concerning the relations between signs the so-called grammar of language is
established.

In an early stage the words may correspond directly to impressions. At a later
stage this direct connection is lost insofar as some words convey relations to
perceptions only if used in connection with other words (for instance such
words as: "is", "or", "thing"). Then word-groups rather than single words
refer to perceptions. When language becomes thus partially independent from
the background of impressions a greater inner coherence is gained. Only at
this further development where frequent use is made of so-called abstract
concepts, language becomes an instrument of reasoning in the true sense of the
word. But it is also this development which turns language into a dangerous
source of error and deception. Everything depends on the degree to which words
and word-combinations correspond to the world of impression.

What is it that brings about such an intimate connection between language and
thinking? Is there no thinking without the use of language, namely in concepts
and concept-combinations for which words need not necessarily come to mind?
Has not everyone of us struggled for words although the connection between
"things" was already clear? We might be inclined to attribute to the act of
thinking complete independence from language if the individual formed or were
able to form his concepts without the verbal guidance of his environment. Yet
most likely the mental shape of an individual growing up under such
conditions, would be very poor. Thus we may conclude that the mental
development of the individual and his way of forming concepts depend to a high
degree upon language. This makes us realize to what extent the same language
means the same mentality. In this sense thinking and language are linked
together.

What distinguishes the language of science from language as we ordinarily
understand the word? How is it that scientific language is international? What
science strives for is an utmost preciseness and clarity of concepts as
regards their mutual relation and their correspondence to sensory data. As an
illustration let us take the language of Euclidean geometry and algebra. They
manipulate with a small number of independently introduced concepts,
respectively symbols, such as the integral number, the straight line, the
point, as well as with signs which designate the fundamental operations, that
is the connections between those fundamental concepts. This is the basis for
the construction, respectively definition of all other statements and
concepts. The connection between concepts and statements on the one hand and
the sensory data on the other hand is established through acts of counting and
measuring whose performance is sufficiently well determined.

The super-national character of scientific concepts and scientific language is
due to the fact that they have been set up by the best brains of all countries
and all times. In solitude and yet in cooperative effort as regards the final
effect they created the spiritual tools for the technical revolutions which
have transformed the life of mankind in the last centuries. Their system of
concepts have served as a guide in the bewildering chaos of perceptions so
that we learned to grasp general truths from particular observations.

What hopes and fears does the scientific method imply for mankind? I do not
think that this is the right way to put the question. Whatever this tool in
the hand of man will produce depends entirely on the nature of the goals alive
in this mankind. Once these goals exist, the scientific method furnishes means
to realize them. Yet it cannot furnish the very goals. The scientific method
itself would not have led anywhere, it would not even have been born without a
passionate striving for clear understanding.

Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem--in my opinion-to characterize
our age. If we desire sincerely and passionately the safety, the welfare and
the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the
means to approach such a state. Even if only a small part of mankind strives
for such goals, their superiority will prove itself in the long run._

