3 ms·
This is Feynman from the introduction to his Feynman Lectures on Physics: The question, of course, is how well this experiment has succeeded. My own point of v
by NumberSix 9y ago
This is Feynman from the introduction to his Feynman Lectures on Physics:
The question, of course, is how well this experiment has succeeded. My own point of view — which, however, does not seem to be shared by most of the people who worked with the students — is pessimistic. I don’t think I did very well by the students. When I look at the way the majority of the students handled the problems on the examinations, I think the system is a failure. Of course, my friends point out to me that there were one or two dozen students who — very surprisingly — understood almost everything in all of the lectures, and who were quite active in working with the material and worrying about the many points in an excited and interested way. These people have now, I believe, a first rate background in physics — and they are, after all, the ones I was trying to get at. But then, “The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous. ” (Gibbon)
Richard P. Feynman, 1963
http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_91.html http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_91.html
Note that by his own account, most of his students did not do well. James Gleick's biography of Feynman, Genius, has a longer discussion of the disappointing results of his lectures to undergraduates at Caltech, many of whom reportedly stopped attending the lectures as they were not getting anything useful out of them.
That Feynman in fact had difficulty explaining freshman physics to the highly qualified students at Caltech surely does not indicate he did not understand freshman physics.
Some topics are simply very complex. It is not clear that they can always be conveyed in simple terms. In some cases, a "big picture" explanation may be possible but the details remain complicated. In some cases, a hand-waving analogy to some everyday phenomenon may create the illusion of understanding but be misleading or wrong.
To give a specific modern example, a state of the art video codec such as H.264 is extremely complex, built of many complicated components and sub-algorithms. While it may be possible to explain the big picture in relatively simple terms, the detailed implementation and operation is not simple. The inability of someone who creates or implements a video codec to explain it in simple terms to a layman is not an indication that they do not understand it.
- JackFr 9y agoThe best math professor I ever had, was in a 400-level Real Analysis class. His particular skill was that he basically had mastered the catalog of incorrect mental models students developed. He would be proving something in class, someone would stop to ask a question, and from their question he would know not to try to answer it as asked, but rather he knew they were asking the wrong question, because the question was predicated on a misunderstanding of something three or four steps back. Now these were proofs that a working mathematician could probably do in their sleep, but they were a level up in terms of abstraction for most of the students and to be able to drag us along with him was a rare talent.
- dtashima 9y agoI always felt that the Feynman Lectures were really, "an incredibly deep understanding of freshman level physics, targeted towards physics graduate students." (As opposed to freshman level physics targeted towards pre-med students.) Even after I got my undergrad degree in physics I would reread the Lectures and would see things on a whole new level than I ever understood them the first time. Edit: even "Surely you're Joking" had jokes that only someone that had graduate level general relativity would get (talking about "gee-mue-nue, gee-mue-nue")
- Radim 9y agoAnother example, even more bare-bones, is AI. We now have programs that "understand" certain domains better than humans. And yet there are no "simple terms" to explain their understanding, reduce it to a neat closed-form formula. Isn't it a mistake to assume a nice, elegant explanation, a cute human "narrative", must always exist? "But Radim, the computers don't really understand the domain!". Sorry, a cop out, No True Scotsman fallacy. In what way do they not? This is crystal clear with Go: the little stories humans have built to deepen their understanding of the game over 2,000 years are irrelevant to a game's outcome. The details and variations are all that matters, and there is no way to reach the computer's level of understanding of the game without understanding the details.