4 ms·

Of all the qualities described in this article, I think the most important is being able to live with not knowing things, as described by Feynman: "I have appr

by pdonis 5y ago

Of all the qualities described in this article, I think the most important is being able to live with not knowing things, as described by Feynman: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don’t have to know an answer" We humans are generally not wired to accept not knowing things; we are wired to believe some answer to any question we can think to ask, whether we actually have any real basis for an answer or not. But giving in to that temptation just means our beliefs are out of sync with reality.

hirundo 5y ago
This is particularly evident in creation myths. In answer to "where did we come from, how was the world made", instead of a shrug or some unsatisfying facts, we hear a story. And our need to understand is such that we cling to that story, no matter how bizarre. It was the Great Coyote. No, it was a war between the Sun and the Moon. No, it was the invisible Sky Fairy. Some times it takes an unusual person to hear such a story and think WTF? And decide that they just don't know.
manuelabeledo 5y ago
I have struggled with this for the longest time. My field is nowhere close to Feynman's, but still, quite frequently I have found myself wondering "why", "why does this thing work this way?", "why is this, but not that?", leading invariably down a deep rabbit hole. Sometimes it's not a complete waste of time, as I learnt about the innards of the systems I interact with. Most of the time it kind of is.
melony 5y ago
He is also a human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics. What works for him won't necessarily generalize to others.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > He is also a human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics. Even if this is true (and I'm not sure it is--Feynman had good intuition about a lot of things, but "human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics" seems more like a description of John Von Neumann or Norbert Wiener), I think it's orthogonal, so to speak, to the ability to live with not knowing the answers to questions.
  - melony 5y ago
    https://www.quora.com/How-good-at-math-was-Richard-Feynman/answer/Strigiformes-Wood?ch=15&oid=129279207&share=2483199b&target_type=answer https://www.quora.com/How-good-at-math-was-Richard-Feynman/a...
- 11101010001100 5y ago
  And yet he understood that he wouldn't be able to answer all the questions that popped into his head with his human calculator ability. It's a matter of introspection.
- gloryjulio 5y ago
  But it's a universal rule. No one knows everything. Everyone has to live with not knowing things. Admitting `I don't know` is the ultimate virtue.
biomcgary 5y ago
Another framing of this: good scientists are comfortable with cognitive dissonance, which is a trait held by only a minority of most populations. Consequently, this means good science and politics are inherently at odds.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  This doesn't follow at all, unless you are also making the claim that if you are comfortable with cognitive dissonance, you will be unable to participate in communications with others in ways that do not make them uncomfortable.
  - biomcgary 5y ago
    As noted in a HN post from a few days ago, nuance doesn't really scale in communication. There exist a good number of questions where the best scientific answers are "unknown" or "possibly with X degree of confidence". A politician, a special interest, or even the average individual wants to set policy now, not wait for an answer.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > good scientists are comfortable with cognitive dissonance I'm not sure "cognitive dissonance" is the right term for what I was referring to, although it's related. "Cognitive dissonance" means that things you think you know appear to be at odds with each other. But "not knowing" just means you don't know; you don't hold any belief with enough confidence to even make it a possible source of cognitive dissonance. The skills of being able to live with each of these things are probably related, but I don't think they're quite the same thing. > good science and politics are inherently at odds In the sense that politics is set up to insist on answers to questions whether they are justified by current knowledge or not, yes, I agree.
  - biomcgary 5y ago
    You are right, of course, that cognitive dissonance is a slightly different thing. When a scientist has an inherently probabilistic epistemology, apparent conflict between known "facts" does not lead to cognitive dissonance, but the same facts (to the extent that they are attended to) often cause dissonance for the general population.

by pdonis 5y ago

hirundo 5y ago

This is particularly evident in creation myths. In answer to "where did we come from, how was the world made", instead of a shrug or some unsatisfying facts, we hear a story. And our need to understand is such that we cling to that story, no matter how bizarre. It was the Great Coyote. No, it was a war between the Sun and the Moon. No, it was the invisible Sky Fairy. Some times it takes an unusual person to hear such a story and think WTF? And decide that they just don't know.

manuelabeledo 5y ago

I have struggled with this for the longest time. My field is nowhere close to Feynman's, but still, quite frequently I have found myself wondering "why", "why does this thing work this way?", "why is this, but not that?", leading invariably down a deep rabbit hole. Sometimes it's not a complete waste of time, as I learnt about the innards of the systems I interact with. Most of the time it kind of is.

melony 5y ago

He is also a human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics. What works for him won't necessarily generalize to others.

pdonis 5y ago
> He is also a human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics. Even if this is true (and I'm not sure it is--Feynman had good intuition about a lot of things, but "human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics" seems more like a description of John Von Neumann or Norbert Wiener), I think it's orthogonal, so to speak, to the ability to live with not knowing the answers to questions.
- melony 5y ago
  https://www.quora.com/How-good-at-math-was-Richard-Feynman/answer/Strigiformes-Wood?ch=15&oid=129279207&share=2483199b&target_type=answer https://www.quora.com/How-good-at-math-was-Richard-Feynman/a...
11101010001100 5y ago
And yet he understood that he wouldn't be able to answer all the questions that popped into his head with his human calculator ability. It's a matter of introspection.
gloryjulio 5y ago
But it's a universal rule. No one knows everything. Everyone has to live with not knowing things. Admitting `I don't know` is the ultimate virtue.

biomcgary 5y ago

Another framing of this: good scientists are comfortable with cognitive dissonance, which is a trait held by only a minority of most populations. Consequently, this means good science and politics are inherently at odds.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
This doesn't follow at all, unless you are also making the claim that if you are comfortable with cognitive dissonance, you will be unable to participate in communications with others in ways that do not make them uncomfortable.
- biomcgary 5y ago
  As noted in a HN post from a few days ago, nuance doesn't really scale in communication. There exist a good number of questions where the best scientific answers are "unknown" or "possibly with X degree of confidence". A politician, a special interest, or even the average individual wants to set policy now, not wait for an answer.
pdonis 5y ago
> good scientists are comfortable with cognitive dissonance I'm not sure "cognitive dissonance" is the right term for what I was referring to, although it's related. "Cognitive dissonance" means that things you think you know appear to be at odds with each other. But "not knowing" just means you don't know; you don't hold any belief with enough confidence to even make it a possible source of cognitive dissonance. The skills of being able to live with each of these things are probably related, but I don't think they're quite the same thing. > good science and politics are inherently at odds In the sense that politics is set up to insist on answers to questions whether they are justified by current knowledge or not, yes, I agree.
- biomcgary 5y ago
  You are right, of course, that cognitive dissonance is a slightly different thing. When a scientist has an inherently probabilistic epistemology, apparent conflict between known "facts" does not lead to cognitive dissonance, but the same facts (to the extent that they are attended to) often cause dissonance for the general population.