Discipling the nations: Review of millers the power of truth to transform cultures

Discipling the nations: Review of millers the power of truth to transform cultures

Darrow Miller

The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures.

Switzerland: 2001

15-765824-85

Introduction

Darrow Miller is the co-founder of the Disciple nation’s alliance. He has written numerous articles, books and Bible studies about culture, poverty and the relationship between development and world view. He has a master in adult education and other graduate degrees in philosophy, theology, biblical studies and Christian apologetic studies. In discipling nations, Miller builds a convincing and persuasive hypothesis that the truth of God can break the spiritual bonds and death. He further argues that it can also free mankind from poverty and deception. He believes that the book will re-energize and equip Christians with the knowledge they need to see the kingdom of God.
Miller takes worldviews to their furthest rational conclusions. It sums up the effect of world views on cultures. The author combines the learning of practical reprieve and development with the mysterious philosophy of worldview. He shows how truth, Gods power and love all combine to transform reality.
He walks us through the relationship that exists between God and man, whereby the Scriptures expose clear and evidential consistent development ethic that can be realized only through the biblical worldview. By exploring other world views, Miller reveals the foreseeable implications they have on human growth and builds a case for intolerance of these lies that diminish souls of individuals and entire nations. It argues that ideas have consequences in the economic and social world.
In this book, Miller argues that the most effective tool that can be wielded in people’s efforts on behalf of the needy is a biblical worldview. It is the ideas that have the most powerful consequences. Having the right ideas drive our actions lets everything else come to plan, but when we are short of ideas everything else will certainly come to naught. In our struggle against poverty and depression, we must gird our concerns for mercy, justice and humility before God, with a biblical instead of worldview.
In 1917 when American troops were preparing to battle in the first world war against France and Belgium, Roosevelt was asked to inscribe a message and give to the soldiers(. The message read in part ''he has shown you, o man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God”. (Micah 6:8). By this message, he exhorted the soldiers to lead the world in deed and word. Roosevelt believed that the eventual security of men and nations depended on adherence to God. He knew that if they took the worldview approach to the battlefield they were to be defeated definitely.
The author depicts the life as suffering. He explains that life without suffering was not possible, and the only way to escape this life without pain was through avoiding sin and fighting suffering. He alludes that a lot of miseries is avoided if we know what life is and how it should be lived. He also believes that man is not worthless, because, if God himself can leave his throne in heaven and come to die for him, then he is also precious enough for anyone who believes to sacrifice their lives for.
Christians being a little bit more Gnostic their philosophy have abandoned their spirit of compassion and have only refuted to spiritual things. They have forgotten about the greatest commission ‘’to disciple nations’’ that teaches them to obey all that God commands. Miller believes that God must be the source, the end and the means for all we do for and with the poor. Each of the Theocentric faiths acknowledges the existence of God. It is in this structure that true charity can only exist. True charity, the spirit of giving distinguishes but never separates.
Miller notes that; it is hard to transform different culture to the point that they believe in one universal thing. Worldviews begin with an individual and spread to his disciples, who take the message to the community and later to the world. As is the case of Jesus’s resurrection, he tells his disciples, ‘’you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth’’ (Acts 1:8)
Conclusion
Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to ‘’make disciples of all nations’’. He wanted to make them not only share his teachings but also build churches. Discipling a nation is so much more than just that building churches and spreading the gospel. It involves doing all that and also helping and giving to the poor. In the book, Miller calls us all to live our lives before the face of God. He explores how cultures contribute to the worldview perspective. His case for the biblical view, on the other hand, is so compelling and it challenges mankind. His ideas provoke a strong reaction from social action Christians and church planting missionaries. By having charities and targeting poor people he walks the talk. His thought of ‘’discipling nations’’ has fundamental implications for every agency in the world.

Buffetaut, Y. (1997). The 1917 spring offensives: Arras, Vimy, le Chemin des Dames. Paris: Histoire & Collections.

Dudson, D. (2001). Disccipling nations: The power of truth to transform cultures (2nd ed., p. 320). YWAM Publishing

literary criticism of 'Thank you ma’am’

Name

Instructor:

Course:

Date of Submission:

Introduction

Langston Hughes book written in 1958, ‘’Thank you ma’am’’ is set in Harlem New York during a time that New York experienced rapid population growth. It explores the effects of kindness and trust. A young boy snatches a purse from an elderly woman, but unluckily he fails to take off and is captured by the woman who holds her by the throat. He expects the woman to call the police but the woman offers to take him home, clean him up, feed him, and eventually she offers him money to buy what he wanted. The motive of the boy was to snatch the purse and run not knowing what was in it. The woman later tells him that all he could have done was ask.

Philosophical Approach

The story presents a life in society where people are willing to forgive and help even after being offended. Mrs. Jones does the unexpected by showing kindness to a boy who not only is a stranger but also tried to snatch her purse. It points out that no matter the circumstance people should be given time to explain their story before they are judged. She brings out the morals that most of the time society ignores. She has a past that she is not proud of her but chooses and this pushes her to show Roger ways in which he can do the right thing.

Mankind has different relationships with God. Mrs. Jones appears to know something about God as she tells the boy, ‘’I have done things, too, which I would not tell you son-neither tell God, if he already didn’t know’’. She appears to know God but she is not ready to repent or tell God about her past and things she might have done

The story’s moral as depicted through the actions of Mrs. Jones and Roger is both explicit and implicit. Mrs. Jones tries to teach Roger ways in which he can become morally upright, and explains to him that she had done bad things but in her past. She is trying to tell Roger that no matter how many bad things he has done, he can always change and be morally upright.

The author appears to be keen on repentance though he lets his characters be depicted as immoral people. But he is quick to let the reader know that one can be a very bad person and change to become morally upright. He depicts God as someone supernatural who already knows before they are asked. The author is not religious but he knows God and through Mrs. Jones he tells the writer the importance of repentance.

Langston believes that good and evil are not miles apart. By explaining the crime and making the reader understand that it was out of necessity that roger wanted to steal form Mrs. Jones. He is trying to make us understand that Roger is not really a bad boy but he is only trapped in a very difficult situation.

The author identifies situations where good and evil conflict. Mrs. Jones tries to be good to a boy who had stolen from him. It is human nature that the boy would have been punished or taken to the police. Mrs. Jones takes it to herself to teach the boy the goodness of being honest. She even puts a suggestion to her that she could have asked for the money. Stealing is an evil in society and Mrs. Jones knows that punishing the boy will not help him. Instead he gives him a choice to differentiate between living honestly and stealing.

Langston tries to show that every human has their way of associating with other people in a community. Mrs. Jones chose not to punish the boy and thus it raises the question about how someone else could have handled the situation. He tries to make us understand that many people could have taken him to the police.  Roger also expected the same because he asks Mrs. Jones whether she was going to take her to the police.

Conclusion

Stealing is a bad vice that should not be condoned in society. But when Rogers tries to steal from Mrs. Jones and she forgives him and even offers him money to buy shoes, it raises questions on morals and what society is doing towards improving the moral standards. Mrs. Jones connects with the boy and understands his background and offers to help not only by giving him money but by letting him choose between good and evil. He gives him the opportunity to run but he doesn’t. The author has succeeded in bringing the relationship between evil and good to test.

Work cited

Langhston Hughes.  Thank You, Ma'am. London: EBook Versions, 1958. Print.

Preventing Potential Tragedy in the Work Place

Preventing Potential Tragedy in the Work Place

Name

Professor

Institution

Course

Date

Preventing Potential Tragedy in the Work Place

Gun violence appears to be on the increase in the U.S. Sometimes it occurs in the workplace, when employees who are angry with their manager or company resort to violence to settle their scores. But in many cases the perpetrator sends signals of his or her violent tendencies before they erupt, and this should be taken seriously. HR professionals often know a potentially dangerous employee but are wary of taking action without hard evidence. An employer may sustain legal risks by not being able to take steps to keep a workplace safe. The key is to be careful and to make sure that the actions an employer takes are fair and based on facts rather than rumours.

An employer must reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities including those with mental illness and allow them perform essential functions of their job. The American disability organization allows organizations to take action against mentally ill employees if they pose a direct threat to others. The U.S. Equal Employment Act has stated that because reasonable doubt is always forthcoming, an employer is not obligated to justify past misconduct even if it’s the result of the individual's disability.

An employer may be required to undertake a fitness test on his employees to determine whether they are fit for the job. Employers can take steps like auditing their processes, publishing good policies and ensuring all employees are aware of the policies in order to make the workplace safer. It is also lawful to conduct credit and background checks and pre-hire personality checks.

Employers should be vigilant in enforcing policies and should train managers on how to respond to unstable employees. They should be able to resolve workplace conflicts, put in place safe interviewing processes and act decisively in eliminating threats in a workplace. They should not ignore the odd behaviour and balance all interests of the employee. But the primary concern must be the safety of all employees.

Reference

Hoey, B. (2013). Defuse work place violence. Heed Threats and Signals; Be Proactive to Prevent Potential Tragedy, 58(11). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/articles/1784/_res/id=Files/index=0/1784.pdf

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Name

Professor

Institution

Course

Date

Introduction

Most countries maintain a liberalized external trade. Trade is as old as civilization itself, but it is the most dynamic aspect of the economy. The existence more trade opportunities across the world resulting from technological aspects and availability material, has led to disparity in the efficiency of production of good among countries.  Competitive advantage is a theory developed by David Ricardo in 1817 with an aim of explaining why individuals, firms and nations engage in external trade. Ricardo’s theory is about potential trade gains that rise from disparity in technological advancement or factor of endowment (Andrea 1998, p.67). In Ricardo’s concept, a nation or a firm can have a comparative advantage if she can produce a certain good at a lower relative autarky price like lower marginal cost. The theory does not put much consideration on the actual cost of production but to the opportunity cost. Comparative advantage has been applied by most firms and nations for a century. Although it is often related to absolute advantage, it is independent from any other theory.

The heckscher-ohlin theory is a variation of Ricardo’s theory was developed by Eli huckster who was a Swedish economist. It states that a country will import goods or services that use its abundant factors intensively and export goods that use its scarce factors extensively. The assumption of the theory is that two countries are equal except for differences in resources.

Comparative advantage occurs when country A produces goods and services at a lower opportunity cost than country B. The comparative advantage theory states that if countries specialize in producing goods where they have a lower opportunity cost then there will be an increase in economic welfare. On the other hand even if one country is efficient in production of all goods (absolute advantage) than the other, the two countries can gain by trading with each other so long as they have different efficiencies.

How the theory of Comparative theory forms the basis of international trade

No country or region is going to be left out in international division of labor; for the law states that even if a country is poor she can still trade. In this regard, this paper further focuses on reviewing Ricardo’s theory juxtaposition ally with Eli huckster and discuss its applicability in the modern trade fare.

Assumptions and weaknesses of Ricardian theory

The most dominant assumption of Ricardian theory is the assumption that two countries produce a certain product, both countries using only labor as a factor of production. There are significant aspects like technology and raw materials that may have significant effect on the cost of the final products. The theory also assumes that all nations maintain a liberalized external trade where trade is no tightly pound by government regulation and treaties. Countries may produce goods cheaply but the cost of trade may be way too high to the point where goods are no longer price competitive. Governments have favored local brands by heavily taxing imported cheaper goods. This regulation makes the model to fail achievement of anticipated results. Ricardian model assumes that labor is heterogynous across countries but homogenous within a nation.

Another assumption is that the goods here dealt in are homogenous.  In today’s industry that is driven by invention and innovation, goods have lots variation. Ricardo’s assumption that goods can be transported freely and costless across nations (suranovic 2013, p.98) can hold for neighboring nations but where voyages are long across the seas, the assumption if taken cannot show a true picture. Cost of transportation sometimes cost more than the entire cost of production. In a classical trade situation, the cost will include exportation expenses like transportation and custom duties.

Another assumption is that labor and be freely relocated around the country across industries. Product market is also assumed to be perfectly competitive in both nations. Firms are assumed to make maximum profit while workers maximize utility.With lengthy specialization of production of certain product, the nations will meaningfully engage each other in trade.

Results of Ricardian model

Monetary cost of producing goods is into considering ration.  When the opportunity cost is the base of decision making, it means that results are immediate and specialization (maintaining production of certain product). Within a free trade, a nation or a firm (agent) produces more that he can consumes less of good to which he got a comparative advantage (Dixit, Avinash and Norman 1980, p.103). Ricardo in his theory suggested that if two nations engage in business, even when one nation has capabilities of producing  all items cheaply that than the other, the consumption exponentially goes up for the two nations (O’sulivant Arthur 2002, p.54). In the short run, increased in consumption is evident. The ultimate effect is specialization and economic status improvement. Ricardo pointed out that comparative advantage is the motive behind external trade.

If a country receives a higher price for a comparative good, then it may want to specialize in that particular good. This will force labor to move from the disadvantaged industry to the comparatively advantaged industry. For that reason one industry in a particular country has to go out of business. But then the workers will be immediately employed in other industries.

When opening free trade, no matter how superior one country is in technology it is not a guarantee of continued production of a good. In that regard a country must have a comparative advantage rather than an absolute advantage in order to be able to assure continued production.

Comparative advantage may survive in another country while it completely doesn’t work in another country, even though the workers in the other country have low wages. It implies that low wages in a particular country in a particular industry is not enough to let us know which countries industry will perish. So free trade may not result in industry decline simply because the firms pay their workers lowly. In the case of the Ricardian model trade is always a win-win scenario. Everybody benefits from free trade. From the below example;

Cost of production (labor time)

Country a	Country b
Glass(1 unit)  1 hour	2 hours
phones(1 unit) 2 hours	6 hours

Comparing the two countries, country A and B, country B is productively inefficient. Its workers will need a lot more time to produce a unit of glass. This may result from a number of reasons. Country A has absolute advantage in production of both goods.

Significance of Ricardian model in international trade

Adam smith in his 1776 book the wealth of nations alluded the principal of comparative advantage model. Comparative advantage model has a bigger role in today’s international trade.

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished ... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage" (Smith 1776, p.56).

Later in 1817 Ricardo published his theory in the book on the principles of political economy and taxation. The theory is commonly known as comparative model theory. International trade is guided by principles conforming to the comparative theory and the effects of such economic engagement are specialization, increased consumption and improvement of life standard. 

Critical Analysis

With current advancement in technology, labor is no longer a major factor of production because machines have replaced humans. Labor forms a very small portion of input.  Without considering aspects like technology independently may not give a true perspective of opportunity cost especially one technologically advanced nation is compared to a third world country. Although labor may be cheaply available in developing countries, the introduction of machines into production of goods May create an imbalance that give an absolute advantage to the technologically processed country.  Absolute advantage will give results that are more immediate and the anticipated results of Ricardo’s model will be overtaken. Maximizing total output in the world we should either, employ fully all resources, allocate the resources to each other countries industries, and allow the allocated countries to freely trade.

Ricardian model in contemporary world

Dynamics in trade in today’s world and advancement in technology that affect labor, to some extent weakness the labor base that Ricardian model is dependent on. The assumption that goods move freely with no cost across borders of the two nations engaging in free trade, is not a common phenomenon because governments have their own interests including protection of their local companies and this may translate to higher taxes to imported goods. A nation can engage in free trade with any nation despite the industrial development of one nation.

Some modern technology is a replacement of human labor and should therefore be put into consideration by any model that seeks to represent the contemporary business environment. Although most nations are engaged in a free trade, interests of agents and governments affect the terms of engagement, and therefore the principle of free liberalized external trade may not uniformly hold across the two nations.   Treaties signed by governments also affect terms of engagement and keeping a pure comparative model environment is difficult. Technological disparity has been defended by that countries do not compete in international market. Technology increases efficiency hence high quality and low price.

Heckcher-ohlin theorems assumption

The critical assumption that has been translated into a weakness is thetwo countries engaging in trade are equal in technological; and labor intensity but different in resource endowment. This assumption hold presumed that after the World War II, all countries will have the same technology. This is not the case in the contemporary world and there is a big disparity in technological advancement. The price of capital intensive products in the country with abundant country will be lower compared to prices of goods in the other nation and the price of goods in a labor abundant nation will be lower that goods in capital abundant nation.

Results of Heckcher-ohlin theorems

After the two nations open a free trade, firms will take their products to the market. The market price will be initially higher and the end is that, the labor intensive goods will be exported by the country with abundant labor and the nation with abundant capital will export goods of intensive capital.

Heckcher-ohlin theorem in contemporary business environment

Heckcher-ohlin theorem do not  contradict any economic models and has not had a lot of criticism but in contemporary business environment, countries with abundant capital  do not necessarily import labor intensive goods as found out by Wassily Leontief in 1951. United States of America despite being the most capital abundant country in the world did not import labor intensive goods but actually exported labor intensive and imported capital intensive good (Leontief  1954, p.69). This contemporary situation contradicts heckcher –Ohlin theory. If labor is however divided to skilled and unskilled, the theorem becomes more reliable.

Conclusion

Ricardian model can be easily dismissed because of its assumption; only two nations engaging in trade, a perfectly competitive market while there are many industries and assuming only one factor of production.  The model was developed when there was no technology that could replace human labor and the dynamics of trade and arrival of new products make the principal inapplicable in the contemporary business world. Today’s external trade is motivated by thing which differs from the expectation of Ricardian model. New motive may include balance of trade and balance of payment, fulfillment of treaties and agreement. Change of nature of goods and purpose of businesses has made the Ricardian model inapplicable especially where technologically advanced nations are involved.

References

Dixit, Avinash; Norman, Victor (1980). Theory Of International Trade: A Dual, General Equilibrium Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duchin, F, & López-Morales, C 2012, 'Do water-rich regions have a comparative advantage in food production? Improving the representation of water for agriculture in economic models', Economic Systems Research, 24, 4, Pp. 371-389, Business Source Complete, Ebscohost,

O'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003) [January 2002]. Economics: Principles In Action. TheWall Street Journal: Classroom, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: PearsonPrentice Hall: Addison Wesley Longman.

Leontief, Wassily (1954) Domestic Production And Foreign Trade - The American Capital Position Reexamined, EconomicInternational

Méra, X 2013, 'Comparative advantage and uncertainty bearing', Quarterly Journal Of Austrian Economics, Business Source Complete, Ebscohost,

Maneschi, Andrea (1998). Comparative Advantage In International Trade: A Historical Perspective. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Miniard, P, Mohammed, S, Barone, M, & Alvarez, C 2013, 'Retailers' Use Of Partially Comparative Pricing: From Across-Category To Within-Category Effects', Journal Of Marketing, 77, 4, Pp. 33-48

Popa, AC 2012, 'Romania's specialization in trade towards eu-27-a revealed comparative advantage approach', Annals Of The University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 21, 1, Pp. 54-60, Business Source Complete, Ebscohost, Viewed 20 March 2015.

Leromain, E, & Orefice, G 2014, 'New Revealed Comparative Advantage Index: Dataset And Empirical Distribution', International Economics (2110-7017), 139, P. 48, Supplemental Index, Ebscohost, Viewed 20 March 2015.

Hadzhiev, V 2014, 'More On Measuring The Overall Revealed Comparative Advantage', TEM Journal, 3, 3, P. 250, Supplemental Index, Ebscohost, Viewed 20 March 2015.

Suzana, P 2013, 'The Theories Of The Comparative And The Competitive Advantages In The International Trade', Ovidius University Annals, Series Economic Sciences, 13, 1, P. 88, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, Ebscohost, viewed 20 March 2015.

Beaudreau, BC 2013, 'What the OECD-WTO TiVA Data Tell Us about Comparative Advantage and International Trade in General',International Trade Journal, 27, 5, p. 465, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 March 2015.

Deardorff, AV 2014, 'Local comparative advantage: Trade costs and the pattern of trade', International Journal Of Economic Theory, 10, 1, p. 9, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 March 2015.

controversies surrounding the theory of relativity.(Albert Einsten)

Introduction

Maric was married to albert Einstein and they had three children. Maric was a very intelligent woman and she studied physics and mathematics. History has it that she was also a collaborator in the life and works of Einstein. There have been speculations about her role in the life of Einstein occasioned by a film aired in the theatres depict her role in the innovations and works. Some controversy including scientists and other academicians in the role she played has been a center of speculation for a number of years. It was however brought into light and into the public domain when a documentary was aired detailing the life of Marci. The one hour documentary stirred a lot of controversy about the facts and inaccuracies depicted in the film.

The film has been described as a masterpiece of historical deception and punches holes in the accuracy of historical information and how poorly records of history of science are kept. Both historians who were involved in a project dubbed “the collected papers of albert Einstein” appear in the controversial film but apparently they do not contribute to the claims of maric’s involvement in Einstein’s works which ironically the film promotes.

Materials in the original PBS website about Einstein’s wife scrutinize the historical evidences of Marci’s life and her roles as a domestic and scientific partner of Einsten. However Einstein’s autobiography never mentioned maric as his first wife neither is there any evidence in the PBS website about Maric being the wife of Einstein (PBS 2006).

The PBS website claims that that the Einstein’s submitted five papers for publication in the year 1905. But there is no evidence anywhere to suggest this and Einstein alone is the one who submitted the scientific papers. It also claims that the name of maric was removed from the 1905 papers, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was removed from the papers since it is claimed that it wasn’t there in the first place.

The narrator in the film informs viewers that Einstein and Maric had been keen contenders to the more fundamental ideas in physics. He keeps on saying that they are trying to resolve the mysteries of the universe in mathematics and later there habit of skipping classes to chase their dreams in physics contribute to them failing their final examinations, but Einstein’s marks are rounded to pass.

At the end of the documentary about Einstein’s wife, it purportedly suggests that without Maric he would have not have finished his work. This is discredited information given the fact that during the time 1904 according to the narrator, Einstein had barely begun his work. So there is no way he could have finished it in that given time. The statement is believed to be a grace note and not a literal reference to 1904. It is from an interview of Einste’s relatives in Novi.

Controversy theories about Maric

Controversy suggests that Maric was not a talented mathematician or maybe she failed her exams and was never given a diploma. Therefore (Weinstein) maintains that she could have made no scientific contribution. There is also no evidence to show that she was gifted but there is some evidence to show that she was not. Although in the divorce settlement Einstein agrees as part of the divorce that any prize he receives should go to his wife. This may sound as a way for Maric to get his fair share for the contribution of the theory of relativity, or, as other historians suggest was a way of not wanting a divorce (PBS 2006).

Another conspiracy suggest that historians have been able to translate the letters between maric and Einstein into English. This has made it possible to make a detailed analysis of their relationship. One of the letters includes a phrase: “bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion!” from this extract there seems to be a hint that the pair must have worked together. However, Weinstein’s analysis suggest otherwise. Einstein’s letters are full of ideas about physics while Marics' have none. This is a clear indication that she was only requiring her suggestion on his ideas but not contributions.

Maric did not specialize in theoretical physics nor did she work with him on the E=mc2 1905 paper. There is no serious evidence that can be used to attest to this form of thinking and definitely this cannot be proved otherwise.

Albert Einstein

He was a German theoretical physicist born in 1879. He is famous for developing the general theory of relativity and the mass energy equivalent formula. In 1921 he received a Nobel prize in physics in recognition for his services and contributions to theoretical physics. E acquired American citizenship in 1940(Paul boyer 2001)

Between 1902 and 1904, he wrote three apprentice papers containing ideas. In additional to the journal articles he wrote a dissertation proposing a method for determining molecular sizes and Avogadro’s number. His work of 1905 gave him a layer of control in the field of relativity theory.

Maric as a co-author

Historians have tried to piece information together to prove that maric contributed and if she did, to what extent has been debated for so long. Others are of the idea that she was just supportive companion and may have helped in substantial research. The work of Maric as a co-author is based on some of this historic evidence.

Abram joffe a Russian physicist erroneously attributed the name of maric in some of the scientific papers as the author. He states that Maric’s entrance into the field of science was unforgettable. Historians Higfield and carter (1953) purport that she might have mentioned the works she was doing with her husband to some friends. There were also several letters referring to “our work”, meaning the work of Einstein and Maric.

There is evidence that strongly suggest that Maric failed her exams and there is a strong possibility that she never was good at all in the two disciplines. Although it is difficult to ascertain this fact given that errors lurk in even reliable sources, Abraham Joffe in the article ‘in remembrance of Albert Einstein’ points out that the 1905 papers were originally signed Einstein-maric. But Harris walker in his 1991 letter to physics today reiterated the claim. He alluded that the three original manuscripts including the one relating to the special theory of relativity were signed ‘Einstein-Marity’, Marity being a loose translation of the name maric. Furthermore there was a claim in one of the manuscripts aired on television that there is existence of at least one printed report in which Joffe noted declares that he personally saw the names of the two authors in the scientific papers of 1905.

However there is no strong evidence to support this idea that she really was a co-author. This is because after her divorce and they went separate ways, Einstein still remained relevant in the field of science up until into the 1920’s generating work of great significance long after their divorce. On the other hand Maric never published any scientific work and there was never even a mention of her role in helping Einstein in the letters she wrote to her friend Helen savic (popovic m 2003).

Historians and evidence

The participation of Einstein’s wife in his scientific cannot be clearly established partly due to poor historical referencing and misreprensation. This puts historians in bad light due to the fact that there are a number of contradicting issues in the involvement of Maric in the works of Einstein. Documented evidence cannot be traced and any evidence purported to be found has had a number of critic evaluation and it has come out as mireprensatation of the original facts.

The writers and producers of the movie “Einstein’s wife” have bent rules according to the ombudsman in order to promote their own agendas. They have falsified a lot of facts that do not have proper documentation and they are willing to give false facts that have no basis in their quest for fame (Gettler 2006). This is so evident in the ever contradicting facts from the film “Einstein's wife” and also from the website of the PBS which has facts that are not clearly documented.

Historians and experts from other fields consider the film to be way off. There is proof that even majority of the scholars featured in the film have contested its conclusion. Former editors at the Einstein papers project which is yet to publish the complete works of Einstein have held similar concerns about the accuracy of the history in the Einstein wife film and documentation on the website (Gettler 2006).

Historians of physics having carefully examined all remaining and available documents and evidence have also come to a conclusion that Maric’s contribution did not go beyond that of the so called sounding board. They further attest that Maric indeed overcame personal problems to get entry into Zurich polytechnic, but failed to obtain the required marks in order to be awarded a diploma for teaching math and physics.

conclusion

In conclusion, intellectual honesty in all arenas of study is important in development of society. Allowing dishonesty and alteration of historical facts suggest wrongdoing and is innumerable damage to the history of science. Pragmatists will always want to rewrite history for their own selfish ends even if it means defaming academic honesty of one of the most important academician of their time. It is therefore, in the interest of conserving the facts of history, to revisit past controversies in order to learn the truth about the surrounding arguments about who did what and who did not.

It is therefore imperative that at some point in history there should be checks and balances that are in place to ensure that history is well documented and facts put in place in order to avoid discrepancies and controversy. It is also imperative that proper historical facts have evidence stored well for cross reference and checking in order to maintain clarity.

bibiliography

Highfield, Roger, and Paul Carter. The Private Lives of Albert Einstein. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.

Gettler, Michael. PBS. December 15, 2006. Accessed May 8, 2015. http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2006/12/einsteins_wife_the_relative_mo.html.

PBS. Accessed May 8, 2015. http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/.

"The Website of Allen Esterson." The Website of Allen Esterson. Accessed May 8, 2015.

"Archive." PBS. December 15, 2006. Accessed May 8, 2015.

ArXiv, Emerging. "Did Einstein's First Wife Secretly Coauthor His 1905 Relativity Paper?" Accessed May 8, 2015. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427621/did-einsteins-first-wife-secretly-coauthor-his-1905-relativity-paper/.