How Einstein’s contributions to Science stand up in the light of the papal pronouncements of the previous section.
We are struck by some candid assessments made by a modern-day adherent of relativity (Clifford M. Will of the University of Washington) and by two of its early critics (the Astronomer Charles Lane Poor of Columbia University, 1920; and the mathematician Arthur Lynch, 1932). Their assessments, together with some quotes from Einstein’s popular book on his General and Special Theories of Relativity, will be listed hereafter as Propositions. After each Proposition a comment about the Proposition will be made.
“Yet despite its great influence on scientific thought, general relativity was supported initially by very meagre empirical evidence. For nearly forty five years, the validity of the theory was confirmed by data that, by today's standards, would be considered qualitative at best.” [Will]
This assertion speaks for itself, and coming from a relativist it carries considerable weight. It denies that true observations and experiments lie at the foundation of Einstein’s relativity. In this Will is in total agreement with Pope Pius XII who taught that true science can be recognised by its painstaking observations and experiments for the verification of the validity of its foundation, and the validity of its deductions.
In his 1951 and 1957 addresses (see Section I, B10 and B11), Pope Pius XII explained that true science exists and that its methods are well-known.
“The pertinent facts of the natural sciences (qualified by the Pope as being merely empirical facts) to which We have referred are awaiting still further research and confirmation, and the theories founded on them are in need of further development and proof before they can provide a sure foundation for arguments which, of themselves, are outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences.” (1951)
“Tireless to seek exact facts, to elaborate theories in order to explain them, to verify theory by new observation, to correct theory when necessary, to replace theory by another that is more perfect, taking account of acquired data, such is the unceasing work of the astronomer, work that seems gigantic even to those outside this field ...” (1957)
With these words from Pope Pius XII to guide us, we will examine the statements of other scientists critical of Einstein, as well as the pronouncements made by Einstein himself.
“Three ‘classical’ tests formed the backbone of general relativity: the excess perihelion shift of Mercury, in agreement with the theory’s predictions, but attributable at least in part to other possible causes; the deflection of light by the Sun, measured to be anywhere between one half and twice its predicted value; and the gravitational red shift, observed in spectral lines of white dwarfs again to be anywhere between one half and twice its predicted value, and moreover suspected to be not a true test of general relativity anyway.” [Will]
What a bullet from a relativist! As for papal reflection on this observation, we must refer to the same quotes given above.
“The astronomical observations are the ones relied upon, mainly, as furnishing proof of the Einstein theories …It was the announcement of the results of these observations that caused the widespread, popular interest in Einstein and the relativity theory. These astronomical observations are fully explained and discussed in the following pages.” [Poor]
This statement from a first class astronomer indicates that the acceptance of Einstein’s theories was done rather uncritically, at least as far as the man in the street was concerned. A more thorough examination of the alleged empirical evidence for Einstein’s theories was needed. Poor continues as follows:
“It is the main purpose of this book to present to the jury of the thinking world the concrete astronomical evidence cited by Einstein and the relativists as proof of the Generalised Theory of Relativity, and to subject that evidence to a critical examination. Many a well built up case has completely collapsed under a searching examination of the evidence and a cross examination of its chief witnesses.” [Poor]
This is vintage Pope Pius XII, who, in dealing with the positive sciences in Humani Generis, laid down the following principle: “... the reasons for and against either view must be weighed and adjudged with all seriousness, fairness and restraint ...”.
In line with Pius XII, Poor is here stressing true scientific methodology and is so far implying that this is absent in relativity.
It is our task to show that Einstein’s methodology is at variance with true scientific method; and through this break with true scientific method to show that the foundations of relativity, its structure, and its conclusions are suspect.
“The physical experiments, or observations, on the other hand, have so far yielded little evidence for or against the theories of Einstein, and are, therefore, but briefly treated. Sufficient outlines of the experiments, however, are given to enable the reader to form a judgement as to the character of the evidence and of the methods of reasoning adopted by the relativist.” [Poor]
Poor is here elaborating on his previous statement, and we can attach to it the comment we made immediately above.