Albert Einstein did not fully accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and stuck to his own theories. This was due to his strong belief in his theory, and it illustrates the boundaries of tenacity and obsession that scientists fight against new theories. While Einstein’s attitude can be seen as stubbornness, it can also be interpreted as an effort to maintain academic rigor.
There is another scientist who lived at the same time as Werner Heisenberg that we know well. Albert Einstein. He famously opened a new chapter in physics with his theory of relativity. However, when quantum theory was first proposed, Albert Einstein was fiercely opposed to it. He was unsatisfied with the uncertainty principle from the beginning and tried to devise experiments to prove that it could not be true. However, his efforts were repeatedly unsuccessful. Despite the long time that passed, Einstein did not change his views throughout his life. In his book Physics and Beyond, Werner Heisenberg writes about this in this way
“I realized how difficult it is to give up the representations that have hitherto served us as the basis of thought and the basis of scientific research. … (Emphasis added) … Albert Einstein was not prepared in his mind to remove the scaffolding on which he was standing.”
In other words, Einstein’s refusal to abandon his views was due to his attachment to his theory, and he only accepted quantum theory as a tentative explanation, not as the ultimate explanation.
In reality, it was the confrontation between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein that became a big issue. The Bohr vs. Einstein debate, as it is commonly known, refers to the fact that Einstein challenged the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics on several occasions, which Bohr rebutted. Since Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were on the same page with the Copenhagen interpretation, it can be argued that Heisenberg was on the opposite side of the debate from Einstein.
From a scholar’s point of view, when a new theory emerges that contradicts the concepts on which he or she has based his or her research, is it right to abandon the old concepts prematurely and accept the new theory? Of course, it is necessary to abandon a theory if it is clearly shown to be wrong. However, abandoning a theory so easily is something to think about carefully. At least until it’s clear that it’s wrong, it’s worth fighting against it. Should we just go with the majority when new concepts are taking over our minds?
In a democratic society, it may seem natural to follow the principle of majority rule. However, this is a method used to gather opinions in society, not to guide academic research. A scholar shouldn’t base his or her research on what other people think simply because that’s what they think. Scholars need to believe in their theories, and it is important that their beliefs are not easily swayed.
But perhaps most important is the impact each attitude has on scientific progress. Let’s take the example of Albert Einstein and his loyalty to the existing paradigm. This is an attitude that can delay the discovery of new facts. This can lead to a narrower scope of research. However, stable research has the advantage of allowing you to dig deeper. The more in-depth research you do, the more likely you are to discover new facts that you didn’t know before. Modern science is more sophisticated than it used to be, and it’s hard to discover new things without digging deeper. Therefore, sticking to existing research can be more effective in making new discoveries.
If you’re working from a faulty concept, the deeper you dig, the more likely it is that you’ll run into difficulties that can’t be explained by your existing concepts. That’s when it’s time to look for something new. Holding on to old concepts even when new ones have emerged can be an obstacle to scientific progress.
As Werner Heisenberg said, it’s very difficult to abruptly abandon a representation that you believe in, but it’s a process that every scientist has to go through at some point. What matters is the right time to give up the representation. Whether it is persistence or obsession is a very important determinant. If a new concept emerges, resolves previous contradictions, is accepted as orthodoxy by the majority of scholars, and is proven to be correct, it would be called stubbornness if a person refuses to abandon the theory they believed in. On the other hand, if the new concept is not correct, it will be recognized as persistence.
This is not to say that Albert Einstein’s attitude was right. His refusal to acknowledge self-evident facts until his death was nothing short of stubbornness. However, from the perspective of a scientist, it is better to persevere and try to prove the validity of a theory until the right time, rather than to give up immediately when evidence appears to disprove it. Isn’t this a more desirable attitude and one that can contribute to the advancement of science?
Albert Einstein’s attitude was stubborn, but I think it is better that he did not readily recognize new concepts than that he gave up his arguments right away. Therefore, I would rate Albert Einstein’s attitude as persistence rather than complete stubbornness.
