5 ms·

But that's exactly my point. Feynman was only able to give such a clear explanation because he really understood QM inside out. If you want to describe yourse

by Fede_V 9y ago

But that's exactly my point. Feynman was only able to give such a clear explanation because he really understood QM inside out. If you want to describe yourself as someone who can read and appreciate Feynman's books - that's completely fine with me. However, I hope we can agree that reading Feynman's books (the ones for laymen at least) is not enough to call yourself a polymath.

westoncb 9y ago
> However, I hope we can agree that reading Feynman's books (the ones for laymen at least) is not enough to call yourself a polymath Of course not. However, first off, the reason I brought up the specific book of Feynman's wasn't because I believe reading it gives you anything special—I was just referencing an argument that Feynman makes in the preface. Secondly, I'm addressing what I see as an impossibility in what it appears to me that you're advocating for: > I've never met someone who I would describe as having a fantastic understand of QM yet skipped the formal mathematical training to deeply understand the equations. That quote sums up what I'm talking about. Another way of stating it, at the level of generality of the greater question at hand here: "no one who is not an expert in field X understands field X as deeply as someone who is an expert in field X" —since people generally already know that, the more useful question is, "If I'm going to learn some things about field X, even though I'm an expert from field Y and not field X—which things from field X should I focus on?" I think part of our disagreement here comes from what one pictures the person with knowledge of many fields doing with that knowledge. Are they working professionally as a philosopher and then on the weekends as a physicist? If so, they have to be an expert equally in both. Or, is there something that can be added to their philosophy work by having fairly in depth knowledge of say, physics, linguistics, psychology, history, and literature? If you are going for this second thing, the way you pick up knowledge from the ancillary fields is different from if you're going for the first thing.

by Fede_V 9y ago

westoncb 9y ago

> However, I hope we can agree that reading Feynman's books (the ones for laymen at least) is not enough to call yourself a polymath Of course not. However, first off, the reason I brought up the specific book of Feynman's wasn't because I believe reading it gives you anything special—I was just referencing an argument that Feynman makes in the preface. Secondly, I'm addressing what I see as an impossibility in what it appears to me that you're advocating for: > I've never met someone who I would describe as having a fantastic understand of QM yet skipped the formal mathematical training to deeply understand the equations. That quote sums up what I'm talking about. Another way of stating it, at the level of generality of the greater question at hand here: "no one who is not an expert in field X understands field X as deeply as someone who is an expert in field X" —since people generally already know that, the more useful question is, "If I'm going to learn some things about field X, even though I'm an expert from field Y and not field X—which things from field X should I focus on?" I think part of our disagreement here comes from what one pictures the person with knowledge of many fields doing with that knowledge. Are they working professionally as a philosopher and then on the weekends as a physicist? If so, they have to be an expert equally in both. Or, is there something that can be added to their philosophy work by having fairly in depth knowledge of say, physics, linguistics, psychology, history, and literature? If you are going for this second thing, the way you pick up knowledge from the ancillary fields is different from if you're going for the first thing.