Ekeko is a god of good luck in Peru and the surrounding region.
Photo by Marjorie Manicke.
What should be remarked upon here is that his (Einstein's) scientific
originality lay in the boldness of conceiving the problem, in the persistence
in carrying it through, with all of its mystifying and unsettling implications,
and in the subtlety to appreciate its mystifying and unsettling implications,
and in the subtlety to appreciate its connection to the most basic questions
about the nature and structure of the universe. Einstein required courage
to execute this line of thinking on his own for years, despite the fact
that it flouted conventional wisdom, and to believe that his resulting
description might be truly more simplifying, edifying, and comprehensive
(hence more “true”) than Newton's universally accepted synthesis
of two centuries before.
As the physicist Gerald Holton has persuasively argued,
such a program requires more than just technical facility, mathematical
acuity, and keen observational powers – though each of these is probably
a prerequisite. Scientists are also guided by underlying themes of themata
– beliefs about how the universe must work, and basic convictions about
how these principles are best revealed. In Einstein's case, the very belief
that there will be a few simple laws, that they will unify diverse phenomena,
and that there will be no element of chance or indeterminacy in these laws,
are part and parcel of his professional code: Einstein is said to have
remarked, “God
wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to make Nature this simple.” Themata
such as these may at times be more central to discussion than the objective
facts and figures that are the scientist's normal stock and trade. As Holton
puts it, “The awareness of themata which are sometimes held with
obstinate loyalty help one to explain the character of the discussion between
antagonists far better than do scientific content and social surroundings
alone.”
The discussion of themes situated at the core of scientist's
system brings to the fore the puzzling but central aspect of scientific
practice. Even though the scientist's self-image nowadays highlights rigor,
systematicity, and objectivity, it seems that, in
the final analysis, science itself is virtually a religion, a set of beliefs
that scientists embrace with a zealot's conviction. Scientists not only
believe in their methods and themes from the depth of their being, but
many are also convinced it is their mission to use these tools to explain
as much of reality as falls within their power. This conviction is perhaps one of the reasons that
the great scientists have typically been concerned with the most cosmic
questions, and that, particularly in the latter years of life, they are
often given to making pronouncements about philosophical issues, such as
the nature of reality or the meaning of life. (p.150)
