4 ms·

Did you read my comment? Because, I explained this already. 'I can't really explain this through text though, so I'll give you a better explanation when I see

Did you read my comment? Because, I explained this already. 'I can't really explain this through text though, so I'll give you a better explanation when I see you this evening.' While I'm not explicitly saying I know you in real life in the previous sentence, one could certainly make that inference. And then when someone calls me a liar, all I have to say is, "Listen very carefully, I never said I knew ddingus." The very nature of an implication is that you aren't explicitly saying something, but rather are phrasing it in a way so that another person would be led into thinking something else. That's what Feynman did.

ddingus 11y ago
That's still not an implication that one knows, just one that implies a better explanation, or put another way, sharing of a greater understanding. Did the interviewer pick up on that subtlety? Who knows? We could easily know we both will be somewhere, not yet knowing one another. Getting at your intent would require more context. For sure, Feynman implied there is more he can share on the topic. An uninformed person may well characterize that as knowing. Feynman would definitely state that as understanding, as that is what science brings us. Actually knowing stuff is another thing entirely. He spent a lot of his life communicating that to people. Great support for the better intent possible in this exchange. Should a detail dialog of that type actually happen, those things would be made clear, or be intrinsic to it. People, who may not understand what science is, could come to the conclusion Feynman knows. But, I very strongly doubt that was his intent. This whole discussion is about an artifact of the limited time and language being used in the interview. Surely we can't hold Feynman accountable or assign this intent. There isn't enough said to make that conclusion.

ddingus 11y ago

That's still not an implication that one knows, just one that implies a better explanation, or put another way, sharing of a greater understanding. Did the interviewer pick up on that subtlety? Who knows? We could easily know we both will be somewhere, not yet knowing one another. Getting at your intent would require more context. For sure, Feynman implied there is more he can share on the topic. An uninformed person may well characterize that as knowing. Feynman would definitely state that as understanding, as that is what science brings us. Actually knowing stuff is another thing entirely. He spent a lot of his life communicating that to people. Great support for the better intent possible in this exchange. Should a detail dialog of that type actually happen, those things would be made clear, or be intrinsic to it. People, who may not understand what science is, could come to the conclusion Feynman knows. But, I very strongly doubt that was his intent. This whole discussion is about an artifact of the limited time and language being used in the interview. Surely we can't hold Feynman accountable or assign this intent. There isn't enough said to make that conclusion.