Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Short video about Einstein writing the preface to his friend Upton Sinclair's book "Mental Radio", which is about his personal experiments with telepathy as performed by his gifted wife. It's a tribute to Einstein's broadmindedness and courage that he so publically supported research into what is even today mocked and dismissed out of hand by so many scientists as mere woo and superstitious rubbish..


https://www.google.com/search?q=upton+si...pkOLo,st:0

The thread title, the subject matter, pretty good MR.

According to the letter at bottom, that he sent years later to Jan Ehrenwald, Einstein wrote the preface of "Mental Radio" purely out of friendship, without revealing "my skepticism in respect to all such beliefs and theories". However, he was apparently sincere in his statement and belief that Sinclair was "carrying out no conscious deception".

Where the book can be accessed online:

Mental Radio by Upton Sinclair
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/63693/63...3693-h.htm

EINSTEIN (preface): I have read the book of Upton Sinclair with great interest and am convinced that the same deserves the most earnest consideration, not only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by profession. The results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly set forth in this book stand surely far beyond those which a nature investigator holds to be thinkable.

On the other hand, it is out of the question in the case of so conscientious an observer and writer as Upton Sinclair that he is carrying on a conscious deception of the reading world; his good faith and dependability are not to be doubted. So if somehow the facts here set forth rest not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious hypnotic influence from person to person, this also would be of high psychological interest. In no case should the psychologically interested circles pass over this book heedlessly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(wikipedia) Mental Radio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Radio

EXCERPT: On the subject of occult and pseudoscience topics, Sinclair has been described as credulous. Martin Gardner wrote "As Mental Radio stands, it is a highly unsatisfactory account of conditions surrounding the clairvoyancy tests. Throughout his entire life, Sinclair has been a gullible victim of mediums and psychics." Gardner also wrote the possibility of sensory leakage during the experiment had not been ruled out:

In the first place, an intuitive wife, who knows her husband intimately, may be able to guess with a fair degree of accuracy what he is likely to draw—particularly if the picture is related to some freshly recalled event the two experienced in common. At first, simple pictures like chairs and tables would likely predominate, but as these are exhausted, the field of choice narrows and pictures are more likely to be suggested by recent experiences. It is also possible that Sinclair may have given conversational hints during some of the tests—hints which in his strong will to believe, he would promptly forget about. Also, one must not rule out the possibility that in many tests, made across the width of a room, Mrs. Sinclair may have seen the wiggling of the top of a pencil, or arm movements, which would convey to her unconscious a rough notion of the drawing.

When Mrs. Sinclair was tested by William McDougall under better precautions the results were less than satisfactory.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Einstein and ESP
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-cont...04/p53.pdf

EXCERPT: Einstein wrote in 1946 to Jan Ehrenwald [...] A translation of Einstein's letter (the original is in German) follows...

(13 May 1946) Dear Dr. Ehrenwald:

I have read with great interest the introduction to your book, as well as the story of all the unpleasant experiences you have suffered, as many others among us have. I am happy that you succeeded in emigrating to this country, and I hope that you will find here the possibilities for fruitful work.

Several years ago I read the book by Dr. Rhine. I have been unable to find an explanation for the facts which he enumerated. I regard it as very strange that the spatial distance between (telepathic) subjects has no relevance to the success of the statistical experiments. This suggests to me a very strong indication that a nonrecognized source of systematic errors may have been involved.

I prepared the introduction to Upton Sinclair's book because of my personal friendship with the author, and I did it without revealing my lack of conviction, but also without being dishonest. I admit frankly my skepticism in respect to all such beliefs and theories, a skepticism that is not the result of adequate acquaintance with the relevant experimental facts, but rather a lifelong work in physics.

Moreover, I should like to admit, that, in my own life, I have not had any experiences which would throw light on the possibility of communication between human beings that was not based on normal mental processes. I should like to add that, since the public tends to give more weight to any statement from me than is justified, because of my ignorance in so many areas of knowledge, I feel the necessity of exercising utmost caution and restraint in the held under discussion. I should, however, be happy to receive a copy of your publication.

With many regards,
Albert Einstein

Quote:This independence of psi from time and space continues to be a
dramatic and troubling aspect of psi research. A splendid example is
provided by the latest remote-viewing tests of Puthoff and Targ. In their
project "deep Quest," psychic superstars Hella Hammid and Ingo Swann
were in a minisub, submerged off the coast off Catalina Island. They
managed to describe the target sites, 500 miles away on land, as accurately
as they had done in previous tests on land when the targets were nearby. In
Mind-Reach the authors report that Ms. Hammid also did just as well in
her remote viewing when the targets were randomly selected after she had
made her report.
In his characteristically simple, humble, commonsense fashion, Einstein went directly to the hub of the matter. After a century of reporting of
results by parapsychologists, the indifference of psi to all the rules that
govern known forces continues to be (along with replication failures by
unbelievers) a major reason why the majority of psychologists remain, like
Einstein, highly skeptical of the reported extraordinary results.

Sounds more like an excuse to dismiss the clearly extraordinary results of the remote viewing experiments and others as well. At that point they can remain permanently skeptical of it no matter what the empirical science shows, simply because it shows that psi is independent of time or distance. Who says it can't be? If this is what the experiments are showing then that is what is the case. It's not scientific to dismiss the results simply because you find it to be too unbelievable a phenomenon or that it doesn't conform to your assumptions about it. Einstein also had a problem with quantum entanglement as well. It was just too extraordinary for him. And he was wrong about that.

So you love some Einstein, but only when you think he supports your woo.

That makes your OP nothing but an appeal to authority. Trying to use Einstein to lend credibility to a fringe topic.
At this point, I doubt that you even comprehend how intellectually dishonest this is.

Quote:So you love some Einstein, but only when you think he supports your woo.

That makes your OP nothing but an appeal to authority.

Were that the case then I'd thoughtlessly agree with Einstein's stated grounds for skepticism about psi. But I don't, any more than I accept his grounds for skepticism about quantum entanglement. It's called the fallacy of incredulity.

It is the case. As predicted, you don't comprehend the obvious.
Your OP didn't mention any skepticism from Einstein, thus dishonestly using his reputation to bolster your nonsense beliefs. That's a bare appeal to authority.
An appeal to authority doesn't require everything that authority says be endorsed, as the appeal is only being used ad hoc.

And now you're using an ad hominem against Einsteins incredulity over "quantum weirdness" to infer that his skepticism of telepathy has nothing to do with empirical evidence. Just more intellectual dishonest.

Quote:Your OP didn't mention any skepticism from Einstein, thus dishonestly using his reputation to bolster your nonsense beliefs. That's a bare appeal to authority.

I never said he supported the reality of telepathy. I said he is to be commended for supporting further research into it, which is exactly what he said. There's no reason his recommendation should not hold alot of weight for the science world being one of the paragons of modern physics. So the point of my OP stands, regardless of his reason for not believing in the results of psi experiments.

"So if somehow the facts here set forth rest not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious hypnotic influence from person to person, this also would be of high psychological interest." - Einstein's preface

So not as support of research into telepathy per se.

But you citing Einstein as a "paragon of modern physics" is, again, an appeal to authority that you're trying to lend to telepathy.

Again, as predicted, you're far to intellectually dishonest, even just with yourself, to ever comprehend.

(Jan 1, 2025 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So not as support of research into telepathy per se.

Wrong quote. Here is where he clearly advocated that telepathy be looked into by psychologists:

"I have read the book of Upton Sinclair with great interest and am convinced that the same deserves the most earnest consideration, not only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by profession. The results of the telepathic experiments carefully and plainly set forth in this book stand surely far beyond those which a nature investigator holds to be thinkable."

Quote:But you citing Einstein as a "paragon of modern physics" is, again, an appeal to authority that you're trying to lend to telepathy.

Trying to lend to the idea of telepathy being researched by scientists. And there's nothing wrong with that as many scientists have and are continuing to do so. See for example https://www.scivillage.com/thread-1163-p...ml#pid2643