3 ms·
1) The article writer completely missed Feynman's point. Feynman is talking about the nature of reality, not about society and its actions. If I say "bricks a
by dstorrs 14y ago
1) The article writer completely missed Feynman's point. Feynman is talking about the nature of reality, not about society and its actions. If I say "bricks are nutritious" and the government forces everyone to eat nothing but powdered bricks, that doesn't change the fact that bricks are not nutritious.
2) There is a slight caveat to Feynman's point -- if a theory disagrees with experiment, it's possible that the theory is correct but the experiment / data interpretation / etc was flawed.
- nknight 14y agoI think that tries to draw too bright a line between theory and experiment. If you view a theory as human understanding of reality, the only reason an experiment would be fundamentally flawed (as opposed to forgetting to carry the 2) is if the understanding, and thus theory, is wrong or at least incomplete.