Barnett,
At first meeting these facts are difficult to digest but that is simply because classical physics assumed, unjustifiably, that an object preserves the same dimensions whether it is in motion or at rest and that a clock keeps the same rhythm in motion and at rest. Common sense dictates that this must be so. But as Einstein has pointed out, common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen. Every new idea one encounters in later years must combat this accretion of “self-evident” concepts. And it is because of Einstein’s unwillingness ever to accept any unproven principle as self-evident that he was able to penetrate closer to the underlying realities of nature than any scientist before him.
Nope, that is not proof that those are Einstein's words - that is evidence that Barnett interpreted that as what Einstein meant. Then again, given that you consider that proof... it explains a lot about why you constantly cry that you are being "unfairly targeted" when proof is demanded... I would say try again... but, we both know you will just repeat the same tired bullshit... after all, you have a several weeks old question still waiting for answers.
In an a legal sense you may be right, that quote would legally be considered as "hearsay" and therefore legally inadmissible as testimony in a court of law.
Moreover, the use of quotation marks to indicate this was a actual quotation of Einstein's actual words, may be inappropriate in this case also as the actual sentence was perhaps a loose translation of Einstein's words by Barnett..
Thus, in a technical sense, I agree with you.
However, is it really relevant as to IF Einstein actually said something like that in conversation with Barnett.
How would Barnett be able to cite specific substantive phrases, such as "common sense", " deposit of prejudices", "prior to the age of eighteen", if he had not personally witnessed Einstein saying something to that effect?
If Barnett's recollection or interpretation of Einstein's actual words are suspect, then would that not disqualify the entire statement of Barnett as "fruit of the poisonous tree"?
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
The legal result is inadmissability of the entire tainted statement.
Note the use of the term "poisonous tree" over the use of the term "poisoned tree". There is a subtle but profound implication in the use of that specific phrase.
Are you prepared to call Barnett (the Tree) incompetent or dishonest in his interpretation of what Einstein personally conveyed to him. If so, are you prepared to dismiss Barnett as a "poisonous tree"?
