Galina Weinstein

Einstein’s distinction between principle theories and constructive theories is methodological rather than metaphysical. Principle theories such as thermodynamics and relativity articulate empirically distilled constraints that delimit admissible microphysical models, while constructive theories remain provisional and revisable. This paper reconstructs Einstein’s framework from primary sources and argues that recent appeals to it by Meir Hemmo and Orly Shenker—under the banner of Flat Physicalism—invert its functional hierarchy. What is presented as an Einsteinian template instead supports a reductionist metaphysics foreign to Einstein’s methodology and increasingly misaligned with the structural commitments of contemporary physics.

This paper critically examines the central thesis of Kieran Fox’s "I Am a Part of Infinity: The Spiritual Journey of Albert Einstein"—namely, that Einstein’s intellectual development constitutes a coherent spiritual path culminating in a form of pantheistic mysticism shaped by both Western and Eastern traditions. Fox presents Einstein as the modern heir to a long-suppressed lineage of rational spirituality, extending from Pythagoras and Spinoza to Vedanta and Buddhism, unified by wonder, reverence for nature, and a vision of cosmic unity. While Fox’s account is imaginatively rich and philosophically syncretic, it risks conflating distinct conceptual registers—scientific, metaphysical, and spiritual—and thereby oversimplifying Einstein’s intellectual complexity. Drawing on Einstein’s scientific writings and personal reflections, this study reconstructs a historically grounded portrait of his thought, emphasizing its tensions, ambiguities, and resistance to spiritual closure. The paper argues that Fox’s interpretation, though rhetorically compelling, substitutes a harmonizing spiritual mythology for the conceptual rigor and epistemic humility that defined Einstein’s actual worldview.

This article offers a critical engagement with Jürgen Renn’s historiographical approach, with particular focus on "The Evolution of Knowledge" and "The Einsteinian Revolution" (co-authored with Hanoch Gutfreund). It explores how Renn reinterprets Albert Einstein’s contributions to modern physics, especially special and general relativity, not primarily as the product of individual insight, but as emergent from broader epistemic structures and long-term knowledge systems. The discussion centers on key concepts such as “challenging objects,” “epistemic matrices,” “mental models,” and “borderline problems,” and situates Renn’s framework within broader debates involving Thomas Kuhn, Ludwik Fleck, and Mara Beller. While recognizing the historiographical strengths of Renn’s structuralist approach, the article raises questions about its implications for understanding individual agency, conceptual creativity, and the philosophical dimensions of scientific change. The paper contends that a balanced account of scientific innovation must preserve both the historical embeddedness of knowledge and the originality of conceptual breakthroughs.

Summary We offer a novel historical-philosophical framework for discussing experimental practice which we call ‘Generating Experimental Knowledge’. It combines three different perspectives: experimental systems, concept formation, and the pivotal role of error. We then present an historical account of the invention of the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope (STM), or Raster-Tunnelmikroskop, and interpret it within the proposed framework. We show that at the outset of the STM project, Binnig and Rohrer—the inventors of the machine—filed two patent disclosures; the first is dated 22 December 1978 (Switzerland), and the second, two years later, 12 September 1980 (US). By studying closely these patent disclosures, the attempts to realize them, and the subsequent development of the machine, we present, within the framework of generating experimental knowledge, a new account of the invention of the STM. While the realization of the STM was still a long way off, the patent disclosures served as blueprints, marking the changes that had to be introduced on the way from the initial idea to its realization.

This paper discusses some philosophical aspects related to the recent publication of the experimental results of the 2017 black hole experiment, namely the first image of the supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy M87. In this paper I present a philosophical analysis of the 2017 Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) black hole experiment. I first present Hacking’s philosophy of experimentation. Hacking gives his taxonomy of elements of laboratory science and distinguishes a list of elements. I show that the EHT experiment conforms to major elements from Hacking’s list. I then describe with the help of Galison’s Philosophy of the Shadow how the EHT Collaboration created the famous black hole image. Galison outlines three stages for the reconstruction of the black hole image: Socio-Epistemology, Mechanical Objectivity, after which there is an additional SocioEpistemology stage. I subsequently present my own interpretation of the reconstruction of the black hole image and I discuss model fitting to data. I suggest that the main method used by the EHT Collaboration to assure trust in the results of the EHT experiment is what philosophers call the Argument from Coincidence. I show that using this method for the above purpose is problematic. I present two versions of the Argument from Coincidence: Hacking’s Coincidence and Cartwright’s Reproducibility by which I analyse the EHT experiment. The same estimation of the mass of the black hole is reproduced in four different procedures. The EHT Collaboration concludes: the value we have converged upon is robust. I analyse the mass measurements of the black hole with the help of Cartwright’s notion of robustness. I show that the EHT Collaboration construe Coincidence/Reproducibility as Technological Agnosticism and I contrast this interpretation with van Fraassen’s scientific agnosticism.

This book pieces together the jigsaw puzzle of Einstein's journey to discovering the special theory of relativity. Between 1902 and 1905, Einstein sat in the Patent Office and may have made calculations on old pieces of paper that were once patent drafts. One can imagine Einstein trying to hide from his boss, writing notes on small sheets of paper, and, according to reports, seeing to it that the small sheets of paper on which he was writing would vanish into his desk-drawer as soon as he heard footsteps approaching his door. He probably discarded many pieces of papers and calculations and flung them in the waste paper basket in the Patent Office. The end result was that Einstein published nothing regarding the special theory of relativity prior to 1905. For many years before 1905, he had been intensely concerned with the topic; in fact, he was busily working on the problem for seven or eight years prior to 1905. Unfortunately, there are no surviving notebooks and manuscripts, no notes and papers or other primary sources from this critical period to provide any information about the crucial steps that led Einstein to his great discovery. In May 1905, Henri Poincare sent three letters to Hendrik Lorentz at the same time that Einstein wrote his famous May 1905 letter to Conrad Habicht, promising him four works, of which the fourth one, Relativity, was a rough draft at that point. In the May 1905 letters to Lorentz, Poincare presented the basic equations of his 1905 "Dynamics of the Electron", meaning that, at this point, Poincare and Einstein both had drafts of papers relating to the principle of relativity. The book discusses Einstein's and Poincare's creativity and the process by which their ideas developed. The book also explores the misunderstandings and paradoxes apparent in the theory of relativity, and unravels the subtleties and creativity of Einstein.

This book focuses on Albert Einstein and his interactions with, and responses to, various scientists, both famous and lesser-known. It takes as its starting point that the discussions between Einstein and other scientists all represented a contribution to the edifice of general relativity and relativistic cosmology. These scientists with whom Einstein implicitly or explicitly interacted form a complicated web of collaboration, which this study explores, focusing on their implicit and explicit responses to Einstein s work. This analysis uncovers latent undercurrents, indiscernible to other approaches to tracking the intellectual pathway of Einstein to his general theory of relativity. The interconnections and interactions presented here reveal the central figures who influenced Einstein during this intellectual period. Despite current approaches to history presupposing that the efforts of scientists such as Max Abraham and Gunnar Nordström, which differed from Einstein s own views, be relegated to the background, this book shows that they all had an impact on the development of Einstein s theories, stressing the limits of approaches focusing solely on Einstein. As such, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries proves that the general theory of relativity was not developed as a single, coherent construction by an isolated, brooding individual, but, rather, that it came to fruition through Einstein's conflicts and interactions with other scientists, and was consolidated by his creative processes during these exchanges.

In this paper I concentrate on the dynamic aspects of the special theory of relativity (in the non-Minkowski formalism), and not on the kinematic part of the story as is usually done. Following up the dynamic story leads to a new point of view as to Poincare's important role in the development of special relativity. Much of Poincare's dynamic work did not enter into Einstein's 1905 theory, since Einstein was mainly occupied with kinematics. However, the dynamic part is most fundamental in the development of the special theory of relativity after 1905. In this paper I consider the main developments of relativistic dynamics in which I demonstrate that much response to Poincare's dynamic research can be found. I argue that Poincare's dynamic work assisted in departing from Einstein's electrodynamic theory towards relativistic dynamics (independent of electrodynamics).