10 ms·

The value of science (1955) [pdf]

97 points by mutor 6y ago

pjm331 6y ago
I forget where I first read this essay, but I have a tendency to go through periods in which I fixate on some person and exhaustively read everything I can find about them and Feynman was one of those people for me at one point (another was Hunter S Thompson - perhaps I have some attraction to brilliant and also deeply flawed people). There are many interesting points in this piece that are worthy of further discussion but I just wanted to call out for appreciation one of the most poetic passages here: “Stands at the sea... wonders at wondering... I... a universe of atoms... an atom in the universe” Beautiful, and also for me personally very charming because I hear it in Feynman’s voice as I have heard it in numerous videos and audio recordings, so down to earth and with the same kind of Long Island accent that my paternal grandmother had.
- protonfish 6y ago
  > ...brilliant and also deeply flawed people We are all deeply flawed. In my experience, being unashamed of our flaws is a side-effect of honestly and humility. Being unable to spot another's flaws is most often the result of duplicity on their part. Sure, there are some pretty decent folks out there (Fred rogers comes to mind) but nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans. It's good to admire flawed people, because they are real.
  - earthscienceman 6y ago
    I'd take this a step further and say it's important to talk about their flaws in nuanced and honest ways. It's something that is both extremely difficult and extremely important. To say "here are the great things they brought into the world" and to say "here are the things that were not so great" and to use both pieces of information when we construct ourselves and our society. Someone who very much falls into this category is Ghandi. A person who was as complex as they were impactful. Ghandi has had an undeniably huge impact on the well being of a huge portion of the world. He was also disgusting and abusive to individuals around him. We, as individuals, need to make it clear that one of these is great and the other is unacceptable. We are capable of such nuance.
    - ripe 6y ago
      Agreed. Gandhi (note corrected spelling) certainly had his flaws. Meanwhile, Gandhi's views on the value of science were not as well known and he is often mis-reported as "anti-science,". because he often harshly criticized animal testing and weapons development. He in fact admired the scientific method and its search for the truth. What he was against was imposing imported western technology on a poor and illiterate populace without actually "teaching them to fish". His contemporaries like Jawaharlal Nehru wanted rapid industrialization to catch up with the West. Gandhi wanted the vast masses in the countryside to develop a scientific outlook and become self-sufficient, not just a supplier of raw materials for the educated urban elite. His views on science are analyzed in a long article by Prof. Shambu Prasad: https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/views_on_sci.htm https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/views_on_sci.htm A 2019 NPR interview with famous historian Ramachandra Guha about Gandhi's flaws and his evolving views on racism is worth reading. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766083651/gandhi-is-deeply-revered-but-his-attitudes-on-race-and-sex-are-under-scrutiny https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766083651/gandhi-is-deeply-re...
  - idolaspecus 6y ago
    You seem to conflate the fact that we're none of us perfect with the assertion we're all deeply flawed. What does "deeply flawed" mean? Hunter S. Thompson was a severely unhappy man with extreme drug problems who shot himself in the head. Unfortunately, people like him aren't particularly uncommon. You've flattened out the landscape of human experience into this, at best, trivial comment that "we're all deeply flawed". The idea that nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans is also quite toxic. Is it true that many people try extremely hard to hide their problems? Sure, sounds plausible. But is it also true that the only way someone might appear perfect is by being a "charlatan"? Of course not. For example, maybe not every person's faults are exposed to the interface between that person and your slice of the universe. I feel a little bit icky slamming on a comment so hard, but I think this flattening out of the human condition is a major negative thread in our culture/society right now.
abhinav22 6y ago
Feynman is a legend
- mhh__ 6y ago
  But not without flaws (it's hard to know how much truth there is with the women - definitely a womaniser, possibly abusive but that could be just be for the divorce - but Gell-Manns criticism of him is pretty funny)
  - abhinav22 6y ago
    I wasn’t aware (don’t really follow the news). My view is to value the work and leave the personal side out of things — with the same token, we should not over idolize people and expect them to be our saviors outside their chosen field. Celebrity worship is bad, they are just humans after all. I should rephrase my original comment as “Richard Feynman is a legend in Physics”.
  - tchalla 6y ago
    > definitely a womaniser, Curious - should someone who as consensual casual affairs with women be labeled as a "flaw"?
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      I think pretending to be an undergraduate to get with (your?) Students is pushing it. I have heard him called sexist, but then again I have also heard him be referred to as slightly sexist but at the time one of not many people who would talk shop to women.
    - siltpotato 6y ago
      Yes, it should. Doesn't change the fact that he was useful to society beyond that, though, and getting caught up in a dead man's crimes, legal or illegal, is unproductive.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jagrsw 6y ago
Interesting read, but was the article printed like that, or maybe someone scanned it with a 20th century scanner? :)
- azepoi 6y ago
  Feynman gave this as a public address to a 1955 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. It was then published in Engineering and Science 19: 13–15. ISSN 0013-7812. You can find it retranscribed here http://www.faculty.umassd.edu/j.wang/feynman.pdf http://www.faculty.umassd.edu/j.wang/feynman.pdf or there http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/value.html http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/value.html
  - jagrsw 6y ago
    Thx
azepoi 6y ago
The title is reminiscent of Poincaré's essay La valeur de la science. It was translated into english with the same title The Value of Science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science
blackrock 6y ago
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -AE
- amelius 6y ago
  The last part is kinda obvious as simpler would be impossible, per the statement.
euske 6y ago
> the greatest value must be the freedom to doubt I used to emphatically applaud this statement, but in this era of fake news and disinformation, now I tend to think differently. Of course the freedom to doubt is still important, but not all doubts are created equally. You have to beware of someone feeding you a suspicious doubt.
- heresie-dabord 6y ago
  > this era of fake news and disinformation To doubt means to test every proposition with intellectual integrity. And with a knowledge of established fact. This is dependent on one inhabiting a social group where successful education has improved discourse and general thinking ability. In the social context, it isn't as bad everywhere else as in the US. Propaganda has become lucrative, that's all.
- JHer 6y ago
  Perhaps the ones falling prey to fake news and disinformation are not doubting enough or their doubting is one-sided. What they lack is the doubt in their own thinking and believing. I believe we should question our own convictions as often as possible and try to understand where they are coming from. That is, try to be aware of how our upbringing, our current personal situation, the experiences we've had in life (and the ones we didn't have) might influence our thinking.
- 1ncorrect 6y ago
  A concept I’ve been throwing around for a while is classifying truth. An idea is a static description, immutable, zero variables. It can exist in one of the following three states: - belief, zero supporting evidence - fact, only non-contradictatory supporting evidence - paradox, supporting and disproving evidence exists All states are valid, but only an idea classified as a fact should be relied upon as evidence for another idea. Every idea starts as a belief. A fact can change to a belief if the evidence brought to bear on it is proven to not be classified as a fact. Equally it can become a paradox if new evidence contradicts existing evidence. Resolution of a paradox would require at least two new, more precise ideas to be created, likely with a clause defining the demarcation of the paradox boundary. The paradox entity remains unchanged. Reliance on a belief to support an argument I consider ‘agnostic ignorance’, and reliance on a paradox is ‘wilful ignorance’.

97 points by mutor 6y ago

I forget where I first read this essay, but I have a tendency to go through periods in which I fixate on some person and exhaustively read everything I can find about them and Feynman was one of those people for me at one point (another was Hunter S Thompson - perhaps I have some attraction to brilliant and also deeply flawed people). There are many interesting points in this piece that are worthy of further discussion but I just wanted to call out for appreciation one of the most poetic passages here: “Stands at the sea... wonders at wondering... I... a universe of atoms... an atom in the universe” Beautiful, and also for me personally very charming because I hear it in Feynman’s voice as I have heard it in numerous videos and audio recordings, so down to earth and with the same kind of Long Island accent that my paternal grandmother had.

protonfish 6y ago
> ...brilliant and also deeply flawed people We are all deeply flawed. In my experience, being unashamed of our flaws is a side-effect of honestly and humility. Being unable to spot another's flaws is most often the result of duplicity on their part. Sure, there are some pretty decent folks out there (Fred rogers comes to mind) but nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans. It's good to admire flawed people, because they are real.
- earthscienceman 6y ago
  I'd take this a step further and say it's important to talk about their flaws in nuanced and honest ways. It's something that is both extremely difficult and extremely important. To say "here are the great things they brought into the world" and to say "here are the things that were not so great" and to use both pieces of information when we construct ourselves and our society. Someone who very much falls into this category is Ghandi. A person who was as complex as they were impactful. Ghandi has had an undeniably huge impact on the well being of a huge portion of the world. He was also disgusting and abusive to individuals around him. We, as individuals, need to make it clear that one of these is great and the other is unacceptable. We are capable of such nuance.
  - ripe 6y ago
    Agreed. Gandhi (note corrected spelling) certainly had his flaws. Meanwhile, Gandhi's views on the value of science were not as well known and he is often mis-reported as "anti-science,". because he often harshly criticized animal testing and weapons development. He in fact admired the scientific method and its search for the truth. What he was against was imposing imported western technology on a poor and illiterate populace without actually "teaching them to fish". His contemporaries like Jawaharlal Nehru wanted rapid industrialization to catch up with the West. Gandhi wanted the vast masses in the countryside to develop a scientific outlook and become self-sufficient, not just a supplier of raw materials for the educated urban elite. His views on science are analyzed in a long article by Prof. Shambu Prasad: https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/views_on_sci.htm https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/views_on_sci.htm A 2019 NPR interview with famous historian Ramachandra Guha about Gandhi's flaws and his evolving views on racism is worth reading. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766083651/gandhi-is-deeply-revered-but-his-attitudes-on-race-and-sex-are-under-scrutiny https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766083651/gandhi-is-deeply-re...
- idolaspecus 6y ago
  You seem to conflate the fact that we're none of us perfect with the assertion we're all deeply flawed. What does "deeply flawed" mean? Hunter S. Thompson was a severely unhappy man with extreme drug problems who shot himself in the head. Unfortunately, people like him aren't particularly uncommon. You've flattened out the landscape of human experience into this, at best, trivial comment that "we're all deeply flawed". The idea that nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans is also quite toxic. Is it true that many people try extremely hard to hide their problems? Sure, sounds plausible. But is it also true that the only way someone might appear perfect is by being a "charlatan"? Of course not. For example, maybe not every person's faults are exposed to the interface between that person and your slice of the universe. I feel a little bit icky slamming on a comment so hard, but I think this flattening out of the human condition is a major negative thread in our culture/society right now.

abhinav22 6y ago

Feynman is a legend

mhh__ 6y ago
But not without flaws (it's hard to know how much truth there is with the women - definitely a womaniser, possibly abusive but that could be just be for the divorce - but Gell-Manns criticism of him is pretty funny)
- abhinav22 6y ago
  I wasn’t aware (don’t really follow the news). My view is to value the work and leave the personal side out of things — with the same token, we should not over idolize people and expect them to be our saviors outside their chosen field. Celebrity worship is bad, they are just humans after all. I should rephrase my original comment as “Richard Feynman is a legend in Physics”.
- tchalla 6y ago
  > definitely a womaniser, Curious - should someone who as consensual casual affairs with women be labeled as a "flaw"?
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I think pretending to be an undergraduate to get with (your?) Students is pushing it. I have heard him called sexist, but then again I have also heard him be referred to as slightly sexist but at the time one of not many people who would talk shop to women.
  - siltpotato 6y ago
    Yes, it should. Doesn't change the fact that he was useful to society beyond that, though, and getting caught up in a dead man's crimes, legal or illegal, is unproductive.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jagrsw 6y ago

Interesting read, but was the article printed like that, or maybe someone scanned it with a 20th century scanner? :)

azepoi 6y ago
Feynman gave this as a public address to a 1955 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. It was then published in Engineering and Science 19: 13–15. ISSN 0013-7812. You can find it retranscribed here http://www.faculty.umassd.edu/j.wang/feynman.pdf http://www.faculty.umassd.edu/j.wang/feynman.pdf or there http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/value.html http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/value.html
- jagrsw 6y ago
  Thx

azepoi 6y ago

The title is reminiscent of Poincaré's essay La valeur de la science. It was translated into english with the same title The Value of Science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science

blackrock 6y ago

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -AE

amelius 6y ago
The last part is kinda obvious as simpler would be impossible, per the statement.

euske 6y ago

> the greatest value must be the freedom to doubt I used to emphatically applaud this statement, but in this era of fake news and disinformation, now I tend to think differently. Of course the freedom to doubt is still important, but not all doubts are created equally. You have to beware of someone feeding you a suspicious doubt.

heresie-dabord 6y ago
> this era of fake news and disinformation To doubt means to test every proposition with intellectual integrity. And with a knowledge of established fact. This is dependent on one inhabiting a social group where successful education has improved discourse and general thinking ability. In the social context, it isn't as bad everywhere else as in the US. Propaganda has become lucrative, that's all.
JHer 6y ago
Perhaps the ones falling prey to fake news and disinformation are not doubting enough or their doubting is one-sided. What they lack is the doubt in their own thinking and believing. I believe we should question our own convictions as often as possible and try to understand where they are coming from. That is, try to be aware of how our upbringing, our current personal situation, the experiences we've had in life (and the ones we didn't have) might influence our thinking.
1ncorrect 6y ago
A concept I’ve been throwing around for a while is classifying truth. An idea is a static description, immutable, zero variables. It can exist in one of the following three states: - belief, zero supporting evidence - fact, only non-contradictatory supporting evidence - paradox, supporting and disproving evidence exists All states are valid, but only an idea classified as a fact should be relied upon as evidence for another idea. Every idea starts as a belief. A fact can change to a belief if the evidence brought to bear on it is proven to not be classified as a fact. Equally it can become a paradox if new evidence contradicts existing evidence. Resolution of a paradox would require at least two new, more precise ideas to be created, likely with a clause defining the demarcation of the paradox boundary. The paradox entity remains unchanged. Reliance on a belief to support an argument I consider ‘agnostic ignorance’, and reliance on a paradox is ‘wilful ignorance’.