2 ms·
Feynman's brown-throated thrush anecdote isn't saying that names don't serve a valuable purpose. As you've shown in your examples names are a tool to help us re
by SteveC 16y ago
Feynman's brown-throated thrush anecdote isn't saying that names don't serve a valuable purpose. As you've shown in your examples names are a tool to help us reference knowledge, but they are not the knowledge itself. Unfortunately people don't always make the distinction. This way of thinking may lead them to collect many references but very little real knowledge. That's the point I think Feynman was trying to make.
- avar 16y agoExactly, here's the story Feynman told on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ
- three14 16y agoI find this point the trivial one. The surprising point is that names really do matter. I had no idea how many sycamore trees there are in NYC before I had a name for them; having a name also meant having a set of characteristics that let me label a tree as a "sycamore" - being able to apply a name to a thing also means recognizing the thing, and being able to communicate about it. (Actually, probably London Plane trees, but don't let my ignorance get in the way of my point.)
- dedward 16y agoHe wasn't making a comment that the names don't matter - he was trying to rationalize why he gained an interest and appreciation for the deep-knowledge of science - not just how to look up reference material. Names obviously matter - language and communication matter if we're going to collaborate on anything - but when it comes to science, to make new discoveries, the ability to look something up in a book is useless without the ability to understand how things actually work and fit together... and sometimes, books, and even the majority of people, are actually incorrect... It's disingenuous to take that Feynman quote out of context and argue that it's an argument against naming... it's certainly not.