Leo Szilard Biography, Role in Creation of Atomic Bomb

Leo Szilard Biography, Role in Creation of Atomic Bomb Leo Szilard (1898-1964) was a Hungarian-born American physicist and inventor who played a key role in the development of the atomic bomb. Though he vocally opposed using the bomb in war, Szilard felt it was important to perfect the super-weapon before Nazi Germany. In 1933, Szilard developed the idea of the nuclear chain reaction, and in 1934, he joined with Enrico Fermi in patenting the world’s first working nuclear reactor. He also wrote the letter signed by Albert Einstein in 1939 that convinced U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt of the need for the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. After the bomb had been successfully tested, on July 16, 1945, he signed a petition asking President Harry Truman not to use it on Japan. Truman, however, never received it. Fast Facts: Leo Szilard Full Name: Leo Szilard (born as Leo Spitz)Known For: Groundbreaking nuclear physicistBorn: February 11, 1898, in Budapest, HungaryDied: May 30, 1964, in La Jolla, CaliforniaParents: Louis Spitz and Tekla VidorSpouse: Dr. Gertrud (Trude) Weiss (m. 1951)Education: Budapest Technical University, Technical University of Berlin, Humboldt University of BerlinKey Accomplishments: Nuclear chain reaction. Manhattan Project atomic bomb scientist.Awards: Atoms for Peace Award (1959). Albert Einstein Award (1960). Humanist of the Year (1960). Early Life Leo Szilard was born Leo Spitz on February 11, 1898, in Budapest, Hungary. A year later, his Jewish parents, civil engineer Louis Spitz and Tekla Vidor, changed the family’s surname from the German â€Å"Spitz† to the Hungarian â€Å"Szilard.† Even during high school, Szilard showed an aptitude for physics and mathematics, winning a national prize for mathematics in 1916, the year he graduated. In September 1916, he attended Palatine Joseph Technical University in Budapest as an engineering student, but joined the Austro-Hungarian Army in 1917 at the height of World War I. Portrait of Professor of Biophysics, Institute of Radiobiology and Biophysics, at the University of Chicago Dr Leo Szilard (1898 - 1964), Chicago, Illinois, 1957. PhotoQuest / Getty Images Education and Early Research Forced to return to Budapest to recover from the dreaded Spanish Influenza of 1918, Szilard never saw battle. After the war, he briefly returned to school in Budapest, but transferred to the Technische Hochschule in Charlottenburg, Germany, in 1920. He soon changed schools and majors, studying physics at the Humboldt University of Berlin, where he attended the lectures of no less than Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Max von Laue. After earning his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Berlin in 1922, Szilard worked as von Laue’s research assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, where he collaborated with Einstein on a home refrigerator based on their revolutionary Einstein-Szilard pump. In 1927, Szilard was hired as an instructor at the University of Berlin. It was there that he published his paper â€Å"On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings,† which would become the basis for his later work on the second law of thermodynamics. The Nuclear Chain Reaction Faced with the threat of the Nazi Party’s anti-Semitic policy and harsh treatment of Jewish academics, Szilard left Germany in 1933. After living briefly in Vienna, he arrived in London in 1934. While experimenting with chain reactions at London’s St. Bartholomews Hospital, he discovered a method of separating the radioactive isotopes of iodine. This research led to Szilard being granted the first patent for a method of creating a nuclear chain reaction in 1936. As war with Germany grew more likely, his patent was entrusted to the British Admiralty to ensure its secrecy. Szilard continued his research at Oxford University, where he intensified his efforts to warn Enrico Fermi of the dangers to humanity of using nuclear chain reactions to create weapons of war rather than to generate energy. The Manhattan Project   In January 1938, with the impending war in Europe threatening his work, if not his very life, Szilard immigrated to the United States, where he continued his research in nuclear chain reactions while teaching at New York’s Columbia University. When news reached America in 1939 that German physicists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann had discovered nuclear fission- the trigger of an atomic explosion- Szilard and several of his fellow physicists convinced Albert Einstein to sign a letter to President Roosevelt explaining the devastating destructive force of an atomic bomb. With Nazi Germany now on the verge of taking over Europe, Szilard, Fermi, and their associates feared what could happen to America if Germany built a working bomb first. Convinced by the Einstein–Szilard letter, Roosevelt ordered the creation of the Manhattan Project, a famed collaboration of outstanding U.S., British, and Canadian scientists dedicated to harnessing nuclear energy for military uses. As a member of the Manhattan Project from 1942 to 1945, Szilard worked as the chief physicist alongside Fermi at the University of Chicago, where they built the world’s first working nuclear reactor. This breakthrough led to the first successful test of an atomic bomb on July 16, 1945, at White Sands, New Mexico. Shaken by the destructive force of the weapon he had helped to create, Szilard decided to dedicate the rest of his life to nuclear safety, arms control, and the prevention of further development of nuclear energy for military purposes. After World War II, Szilard became fascinated by molecular biology and the groundbreaking research being done by Jonas Salk in developing the polio vaccine, eventually helping found the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. During the Cold War, he continued to call for international atomic arms control, the advancement of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and better U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. Szilard received the Atoms for Peace Award in 1959, and was named Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association, and given the Albert Einstein Award in 1960. In 1962, he founded the Council for a Livable World, an organization dedicated to delivering â€Å"the sweet  voice of reason† about nuclear weapons to Congress, the White House, and the American public. The Voice of the Dolphins In 1961, Szilard published a collection of his own short stories, â€Å"The Voice of the Dolphins,† in which he predicts moral and political issues to be triggered by the proliferation of atomic weapons in the year 1985. The title refers to a group of Russian and American scientists who in translating the language of dolphins found that their intelligence and wisdom exceeded that of humans. In another story, â€Å"My Trial as a War Criminal,† Szilard presents a revealing, though fantasized, view of himself standing trial for war crimes against humanity after the United States had unconditionally surrendered to the Soviet Union, after losing a war in which the U.S.S.R. had unleashed a devastating germ warfare program. Personal Life Szilard married physician Dr. Gertrud (Trude) Weiss on October 13, 1951, in New York City. The couple had no known surviving children. Before his marriage to Dr. Weiss, Szilard had been an unmarried life partner of Berlin opera singer Gerda Philipsborn during the 1920s and 1930s. Cancer and Death After being diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1960, Szilard underwent radiation therapy at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital, using a cobalt 60 treatment regimen Szilard himself had designed. After a second round of treatment in 1962, Szilard was declared cancer-free. The Szilard-designed cobalt therapy is still used for the treatment of many inoperable cancers. During his final years, Szilard served as a fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, which he had helped to found in 1963. In April 1964, Szilard and Dr. Weiss moved to a La Jolla hotel bungalow, where he died of heart attack in his sleep on May 30, 1964, at age 66. Today, a portion of his ashes is buried in Lakeview Cemetery, Ithaca, New York, alongside those of his wife. Sources and Further Reference Lanoutte, William. Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the Bomb. University of Chicago Press (1992). ISBN-10: 0226468887Leo Szilard (1898-1964). Jewish Virtual LibraryLeo Szilard Papers, 1898-1998. University of California San Diego (1998)Leo Szilard: European Refugee, Manhattan Project Veteran, Scientist. Atomic Heritage Foundation.Jogalekar, Ashutosh. Why the World Needs More Leo Szilards. Scientific American (February 18, 2014).

Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies

Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies Fallacy Name:Oversimplification and Exaggeration Alternative Names:Fallacy of Reduction Fallacy of Multiplication Category:Faulty Causation Explanation The causation fallacies known as oversimplification and exaggeration occur whenever the series of actual causes for an event is either reduced or multiplied to the point where there is no longer a genuine, causal connection between the alleged causes and the actual effect. In other words, multiple causes are reduced to just one or a few (oversimplification) or a couple of causes are multiplied into many (exaggeration). Also known as the reductive fallacy because it involves reducing the number of causes, oversimplification seems to occur more often, perhaps because there are so many ostensibly good reasons for simplifying things. Well-intentioned writers and speakers can readily fall into the trap of oversimplification if they are not careful. One impetus for simplification is the basic advice given to all who want to improve their writing style: dont get bogged down in details. Good writing needs to be clear and precise, thus helping people to understand an issue rather than confusing them even more. In the process, however, a writer can easily leave out too many details, omitting critical information which needs to be included. Another important impetus which can lead to oversimplification is the overuse of an important tool in critical thinking: Occams Razor. This is the principle of not assuming too many factors or causes for an event than are necessary and is often expressed by saying the simpler explanation is preferable. Although it is true that an explanation should be no more complicated than necessary, one must be very careful not to construct an explanation which is less complicated than necessary. A famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein states, Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Examples and Discussion of Oversimplification Here is an example of oversimplification which atheists often hear: 1. School violence has gone up and academic performance has gone down ever since organized prayer was banned at public schools. Therefore, prayer should be reintroduced, resulting in school improvement. This argument obviously suffers from oversimplification because it assumes that problems in schools (increasing violence, decreasing academic performance) can be attributed to a single cause: the loss of organized, state-mandated prayers. A myriad of other factors in society are completely ignored as if the social and economic conditions havent changed in any relevant way. One way to reveal the problem in the above example is to reword it slightly: 2. School violence has gone up and academic performance has gone down ever since racial segregation was banned. Therefore, segregation should be reintroduced, resulting in school improvement. Presumably, there are racists around who would agree with the above, but very few of those who make the argument in #1 will also make the argument in #2 - yet, they are structurally the same. The reasons for both examples of oversimplification is actually another Causation Fallacy, known as Post Hoc Fallacy. In the real world, events typically have multiple, intersecting causes which together produce the events we see. Often, however, such complexities are difficult to understand and even more difficult to change; the unfortunate result is that we simplify things. Sometimes that isnt so bad, but sometimes it can be disastrous. Sadly, politics is one field where oversimplification occurs more often than not. 3. The nations current lack of moral standards was caused by the poor example set by Bill Clinton when he was president. Granted, Clinton may not have set the best example imaginable, but it isnt reasonable to argue that his example is responsible for the morality of the entire nation. Once again, there is a wide variety of different factors which can influence the morality of individuals and groups. Of course, not all examples of oversimplification identify as the cause something which is completely irrelevant: 4. Education today isnt as good as it used to be - obviously, our teachers are not doing their jobs.5. Since the new president took office, the economy has been improving - obviously he is doing a good job and is an asset to the nation. Although #4 is a rather harsh statement, it cannot be denied that teacher performance does impact the quality of education which students receive. Thus, if their education isnt very good, one place to look is teacher performance. However, it is a fallacy of oversimplification to suggest that teachers are the sole or even primary cause. With #5, it should also be acknowledged that a president does impact the state of the economy, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. However, no single politician can take sole credit (or sole blame) for the state of a multi-trillion dollar economy. A common reason for oversimplification, especially in the political realm, is a personal agenda. It is a very effective means for either taking credit for something (#5) or for placing blame on others (#4). Religion is also a field where oversimplification fallacies can be readily found. Consider, for example, a response which is heard after anyone survives a major tragedy: 6. She was saved through Gods help! For the purposes of this discussion, we should ignore the theological implications of a god who chooses to save some people but not others. The logical problem here is the dismissal of all the other factors which contribute to a persons survival. What about the doctors who perform the life-saving operations? What about the rescue workers who spend insane amounts of time and money in the rescue effort? What about the product manufacturers who made the safety devices (like seat belts) which protect people? All of these and more are causal factors which contribute to the survival of people in accidents, but they are too often ignored by those who oversimplify the situation and attribute survival to just a single cause: the Will of God. People also tend to commit the fallacy of oversimplification when they simply dont understand what they are talking about. This is a common occurrence in science debates because so much of the material can be comprehended best only by experts in specialized fields. One place where this is seen quite often are the arguments some creationists offer against evolution. Consider this example, a question which Dr. Kent Hovind uses in an attempt to prove that evolution isnt true and isnt possible: 7. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true? For someone unfamiliar with evolution, this question may seem reasonable - but its error lies in vastly oversimplifying evolution to the point where it becomes unrecognizable. It is very true that natural selection operates with the genetic information which is available; however, natural selection is not the only process which is involved in evolution. Ignored are such factors as mutation and genetic drift. By oversimplifying evolution down to just natural selection, however, Hovind is able to portray evolution as a one-dimensional theory which cannot possibly be true. It is in such examples that an oversimplification fallacy can also become a Straw Man Fallacy if a person takes the oversimplified description of a position and then proceeds to criticize it as if it were the genuine position. Examples and Discussion of Exaggeration Related to, but much rarer than, the fallacy of oversimplification is the fallacy of exaggeration. Mirror images of each other, an exaggeration fallacy is committed when an argument tries to include additional causal influences which are ultimately irrelevant to the matter at hand. We can say that committing a fallacy of exaggeration is a consequence of failing to heed Occams Razor, which states that we should prefer the simpler explanation and refrain from adding entities (causes, factors) which are not specifically necessary A good example is one which is related to one of those used above: 8. The rescue workers, doctors and various assistants are all heroes because, with the help of God, they managed to save all of the people involved in that accident. The role of individuals like doctors and rescue workers is obvious, but the addition of God seems gratuitous. Without an identifiable effect of which can be said to be necessarily responsible, the inclusion qualifies as an exaggeration fallacy. Other instances of this fallacy can be found in the legal profession, for example: 9. My client killed Joe Smith, but the cause for his violent behavior was a life of eating Twinkies and other junk food which impaired his judgment. There is no clear link between junk food and violent behavior, but there are other identifiable causes for it. The addition of junk food to that list of causes constitutes a fallacy of exaggeration because the real causes only end up being masked by additional and irrelevant pseudo-causes. Here, the junk food is an entity which is simply not necessary.