Classifiable or Quantifiable

The world that we live in is comprised of classifications and labels. In science, politics, and history we have seen how classifying objects and people have had repercussions on society. For example, as we have been learning, we classify physics as being quantifiable or measurable. For the most part, up until Einstein, people have accepted the truths about science being that a theory is only right if it is measurable. Einstein came along and tried to disprove what scientists in the past have stated as truth. No wonder he is such a controversial figure in science, as he tried to show the world that science isn't as clear cut as previously stated, and there is mystery in science. A scientist's job is to find answer to life's mysteries, so when scientists such as Heisenberg and Einstein said that it is impossible to find measurements for everything there was controversy. Isn't it cool to think that there isn't an answer to everything and no matter how hard one tries jsomethings just can't be explained? That is the beauty of the world.

In the 1930's, Stark and Lenard instituted this idea of classifying science as"Aryan Physics" or "Jewish Physics". Aryan Physics was non Jewish, perfect and pure science. Aryan Physics did not agree with relativity and quantum mechanics because it left unanswered questions. Once again, Einstein is belittled and hated among the German scientific community for his work. Einstein also did not agree with the National Socialist party, as he was part of the anti-Fascist movement. This discord between his political views and the National Socialist party, as well as, his scientific views gave Stark a reason to hate Einstein.

As Hitler slowly took power, the German citizens were classified as either Aryans or non-Aryans. These classifications allowed people to start to reject non-Aryans in the educational and scientific realms. There was a law against the overcrowding of German schools and universities, which essentially was an excuse for Germans to not accept Jews into their schools. The creation of all these bogus laws, justified the Germans' claims, and to the average citizen made the Germans' actions appear legal. I don't understand how a government can legally classify a person and how the Nazis got away with their actions. A non-Aryan was defined as someone who had one practicing Jewish grandparent. This definition is quite vague, and not until the 1935 Nuremberg laws did Germany have a concrete definition. Under these laws, a non-Aryan was a person who had three grandparents who were registered as practicing Jews. The reason behind having such an extensive family guideline was because many grandparents were dead or wouldn't change their faith, thus people couldn't easily change their faith. It is easier for a person to say that they are Jewish if they have extensive family lineage that demonstrates Jewish practices, then going by one relative who could have converted. Once again, this idea of the government not being able to easily classify things upset the Nazis. It was easier for the government to take control over scientists' practices, schools etc. if they have a "black and white" law instead of a "gray" one. Classification, in this instance, put the government's worries at ease. It allowed for the easy extermination of Jews years later, as well as, the ability of the Nazi's to take over science, education, and ultimately the German government.

Throughout our readings we have seen many concepts classified and the scientists, government officials, etc. use these classifications as justification for their actions and beliefs. Whether we are classifying science as "Aryan", "quantifiable", or "pragmatic", science should be universal and respected, and these classifications should not have any effect on how people view the concepts. Similarly, if we classify people as "Nazi", "Jewish" "White Jews" etc., we are saying that we must section people off and we can not see "eye to eye". By classifying something it give a sense of status and states that one group is not related to another. Society might be able to understand each other and the inner workings of the world, by erasing all of these classifications and labels and just looking at a concept or a person for what it is worth.

Radiation and the Russians

While I was walking in the sun the other day, I remembered what I learned in class earlier that afternoon about heat. The infra-red light from the sun was heating me up as I walked back to my cold house. I always thought that it was the UV rays that were heating me up, but I learned otherwise. I also thought that it was interesting that the larger the wavelength, the smaller the energy level. Normally, one would assume the opposite conditions. Also, I was intrigued by the fact that everything emits heat, even if an object is stationary. Normally, one would think of something as hot if one can feel the energy that it is emitting, but that is not necessarily true. Our bodies are constantly emitting heat in order to keep a steady temperature. As I am sitting here, freezing in my house, I wish that the heat was being transferred from the air and florescent lighting, to my body.

In response to Professor Walker's lecture on the Russian Revolution and our readings, it was interesting to learn that throughout the years, Russians became accepting of science and eventually became dependent on it, in order to increase its power in the world. I was intrigued to learn how divided Russia became in regards to scientific policy and the government. People were either against science because it would spur capitalism or people wanted scientists because it offered specialities, but unfortunately having scientists lead to distrust. Scientists were needed in order to create new innovations that would aid the prosperity of Russia. A country with a strong economy is a key factor in order to be a super power, and if the Russians knew that scientists could spur this growth in economy, why were they so opposed to the idea?

The idea of technocracy is puzzling, as Soviets according to the term, wanted to rule by scientific and technical elite, but at the same time believed that scientists were untrustworthy. There was no ideal situation as something had to give, but it was a matter of what was more important, advancing science or keeping the same political structure. Throughout the years, Russia formed many scholarly and political groups, as well as, instituted many policies, in order to solve this dichotomy.

Throughout the time, I believe that each individual was selfish and did not fully think about the benefits science would contribute to the country. The scientists should have been left alone to do their own thing, and advance the country as they please. Everyone's opinions of what should have been done only hindered the advancement of science. I agree with the Prolekult idea that everyone should be able to practice science, not only the elite, but sometimes the professionals are the only ones who will be able to advance the country. The Bolshevik ideology of controlling science, obstructed the advancement of science because they had to create for the state, and it was often hard to predict what the state needed in the future.

The idea of the Five Year Plan, was also problematic for scientists because they were unable to foresee the industry of the country down the road. They can't reasonably anticipate what the state will need, so the hard work that they expended into projects could have been useless. The scientists were also fearful that they would not perform up the expectations of the state. They were told that they had to expand, but were not given any guidance on how to do so. This left scientists in a bubble, with no guidelines, only expectations. Another point that I agree with is that the physicists were afraid that the new system of planning would constrain research, and they were unable to advance the state in other aspects. Scientists should be free to exercise their knowledge and creativity to whatever extent they please, but the government restraint under the Five Year Plan veered them off the creativity path.

Lastly, the Soviets wanted the scientists to create new products, but by cutting them off from communicating and collaborating with other scientists, it essentially defeated the purpose. They were unable to easily advance themselves because they couldn't get help from others. The whole point of "scientific nationalism" is to create products off of each other, and to throw around ideas until an idea is perfected. By cutting off Russian scientists, it was hard to advance their state industry, and ultimately advance their country's position in the world. The physicists were unable to take advantage of the international collaboration which dominated physics in the West. I don't blame the scientists who left Russia and never came back because they were able to freely expand their knowledge and not be oppressed by Stalin. All of the regulations of the government impeded the scientists' abilities to make Russia a prosperous nation.

Finding the Right Formula for International Relations

When I first entered this class I didn't know what to expect. I had no idea how physics and politics related to each other. Science to me is just a bunch of numbers and formulas, but after the first few readings and classes I have realized that physics plays a huge role in my everyday life. My everyday actions are affected one way or another by science and I hope that by taking this class I will gain a better understanding of the physical world around me. I am very interested in politics, so it will be interesting to see how science can also be political, and how people in history have used science to advance themselves in the international realm.

I never realized the international role that science played during World War I, and the importance of the role it currently plays in our world. In order for science to be successful and benefit everyone there needs to be a free market of ideas in order to create new products that will advance society. Therefore, in order for a country to prosper and make a difference for its society, it has to have good international relations so that the country's scientists are able to collaborate with others. Unfortunately, during times of war it is often hard for countries to be civil with one another, and different political ideologies make it harder to find a common solution. Countries are often unable to put their differences aside and work for a common purpose, which arises in more problems. The articles that we read depict the specific problems that arise in the science field and in politics when there is dissidence among nations.

It was interesting to learn how two scientists took different approaches to science and life during World War I and after it. I never knew that Albert Einstein was a pacifist and a Zionist. I admire Einstein because even though his views drastically differed from the rest of society's, he still fought for what he believed was rthe right solution for the country during wartime. Even though he was hated by most during war, centuries later he is revered by almost everyone. In a time when most Germans would be afraid to speak against the government, Einstein's passion for peace did not deter him from speaking his mind. When the Germans were solely interested in making things for their export and dominating the world, Einstein was trying to make sense of the physical world, and show the Germans a different approach to the war.

Similar to Einstein, Hale was also trying to unite scientists across the world in order to improve the war effort. He knew the importance of international science, and did not want the Germans to influence the science realm anymore then they were. He felt that they were already too powerful. He did anything in his power to keep the Germans out of the international scientist organizations. With every country trying to make new innovation and advance their science and military, he believed that there needed to be agency of war that could surpass the Germans.Hale ran into a lot of trouble while he was trying to win support from the neutrals, but with his relentless effort he never gave up. Both Hale and Einstein were persistent in trying to get their ideas accepted by others. They were both passionate about advancing science and did anything in their power to successfully attain their goals. These scientists can be seen as role models by many, as they never gave up, and have greatly contributed to the science world.

I have never thought of science as a status of power, but rather that power lies within the country's government. Germany had a very powerful government that was driven by scientific and military advancements. Unfortunately for them, their power ostracized them from the rest of the world. Is there a way for a country to have the best of both worlds; scientific and world power without being shunned by the rest of the world? Science contributes to a country's power and throughout the years, we have seen how science has hindered and helped international relations. Hopefully, we can learn from our past mistakes and continue this notion of scientific internationalism.