7 ms·

His motto "What I cannot create, I do not understand" has been one of the driving forces in my own quest to understand more about the world around me. A good fr

His motto "What I cannot create, I do not understand" has been one of the driving forces in my own quest to understand more about the world around me. A good friend had picked up a corollary which was "What I cannot teach, I do not understand" which I think was quite similar. Definitely one of my heroes.

jelder 2y ago
There's another corollary that always struck me as true: “To see is to forget the name of the thing one sees.” -- Paul Valéry Posted on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40700530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40700530
frugalmail 2y ago
>"What I cannot teach, I do not understand" This is really more in line to some of the things Feynman communicated in many of his interviews. I feel like it more accurately reflects the way Feynman approached things. He was such a loss. RIP
- ChuckMcM 2y ago
  Have you ever asked yourself why this version (with 'create' in it) was on his black board?
  - frugalmail 2y ago
    I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
gregschlom 2y ago
> "What I cannot teach, I do not understand" And the corollary to that, from 17th century French writer Nicolas Boileau: "Ce que l'on conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." - What we understand well, we express clearly, and words to describe it flow easily.
- fouronnes3 2y ago
  I'm french and I have a great memory about that quote. In high school my litterature and physics teachers had a disagreement about it, although I believe they didn't know about each other's point of views. Only us the students did, as they each hand waved great insights about the world with this quote. One was arguing, much like you, about the profound truth there is to it. The other was quick to explain that they perfectly conceived how to ride a bicycle, but like most of us couldn't possibly teach it at a blackboard. I leave it to you to guess which was which :)
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    I would say that if you can't explain on a blackboard how to ride a bicycle, then that simply means you do not understand how to ride a bicycle. You can do a thing without understanding it. I would guess very few bike riders really understand what all makes the act work even though they all can perform the act. Maybe no one can learn how to ride a bike purely from a blackboard but that is a seperat issue about physicality. But the quote is really about understanding, and the forces and effects that go into the act of riding a bike are both understandable and explicable. Anyone who understands them can describe them on a blackboard. So the quote holds water even in the case of riding a bike. I would say anyway. Maybe there are other examples and bike riding just wasn't the best example to invalidate the quote.
  - jonahx 2y ago
    Literature professor = bike argument? That's were I put my money, but I could see it going either way. This can devolve into a definitional argument, but I actually think it's fair to say we don't understand how we ride a bike. We have many abilities and fluencies we don't understand, or only partially understand, in the sense that we can't break them down into pieces easily and transmit the information. That perspective feels more accurate to me than saying I understand how I ride a bike because I can ride a bike, though in common usage the phrase "I understand how to ride a bike" would be perfectly acceptable. The subtle distinction between the phrase "knows how to" and "understands" hints at the difference here.
jimbokun 2y ago
This is even more relevant in the LLM era. LLMs can spit out an answer to a question. But if you cannot understand and assess those claims at a deep level, you are not adding any value to the process.
baxtr 2y ago
Love his books! Although, it seems like he’s getting a bad rep these days. How did that happen? PS: I’m referring to that video that pops up on top when you google him for example.
- tovej 2y ago
  He hasn't written a single book (surprising I know), I assume you're talking about "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", which contains exaggerated anecdotes designed to make Feynman look like a hero. That one was written by a fanboy (Ralph Leighton) based on stories that Feynman told him, which have been revealed to be either fake or exaggerations (they found notes in his office of him writing and rewriting these hero stories). It's a terrible book, in my opinion. If you want to know why, Angela Collier says it better and in more detail than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc Is that the video you're referring to? Watch the video and I think you'll see why he is "getting a bad rep these days".
- adastra22 2y ago
  All the first page results of my Google search are positive, except for the one video (not near the top of the results) that has a provocative title but is 2 hours long. I’m not going to watch that. Can you link to the negative stuff you’re seeing?
  - baxtr 2y ago
    That is the one I was talking about. Watching the first 5 minutes is enough I think.
    - scintill76 2y ago
      I’ve watched 2 Angela Collier videos on him albeit in the background — you’d probably have to watch the whole thing to truly understand the “bad rep” and I can’t speak to how widespread the bad rep is. My memory is, misogyny, cringey stories that were surely greatly exaggerated and just happen to make Feynman the smartest guy in every room, kind of a jerk in general, divorce due to claimed domestic violence, never did the work of writing a book personally but has the reputation of being a prolific author, his pop appeal makes people elevate him to the very top minds of physics when the work of others was much more impactful.
pmarreck 2y ago
My version of this was realizing at some point "What I can understand, I can control"
hcs 2y ago
> "What I cannot teach, I do not understand" I tend to agree, but teaching another person is also a whole different set of skills from being able to drive something yourself. One prominent example is the "curse of knowledge"; it may take a lot of practice becoming a beginner to be able to teach for a beginner's perspective in your area of expertise.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- fknorangesite 2y ago
  God, thank you. I really dislike the old aphorism that if you can't teach something you don't understand it. Teaching is a whole complicated skill unto itself, especially if one is teaching to beginners. Like (since we're on HN), how easy is it to imagine someone very good at programming but would be a terrible choice as a Comp Sci 101 prof? I'm guessing "very." The whole idea deeply undermines teachers of all subjects.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    I think that “teach” has a different meaning here. There is “understanding something well enough to elaborate it in its entirety” (the technical capacity to teach it) and then there is the former + “and have the skill/talent of being able to explain it to a wide variety of other people from different backgrounds.”
somat 2y ago
A similar thing I heard about the amish, is that it is not that they are anti technology, it is that they Don't want technology they can't control, basically if unable to make from raw materials they don't want it. Now I don't think this is entirely the way things are, I suspect there is a core of truth with a lot of religion and tradition surrounding it. But I have a lot of sympathy for wanting to have the freedom that control over your environment grants you. Personally I would hate to give up my tech. and remain a willing slave to the manufactures.
- dinkumthinkum 2y ago
  That's not really true about the Amish. I've never heard that interpretation. It is more complicated than and Amish do use technology in limited ways but it boils down to not wanting to disrupt their family with technology and also the complicated process of integrating new technology into their lifestyles.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  > it is that they Don't want technology they can't control, basically if unable to make from raw materials they don't want it. Lots of Amish farmers use a computer. They just keep it separate, and don't let it invade their home and decide their life. Think landline phone on a farm, but also the phone is in an outdoor phone booth and used only for unavoidable things like ordering seeds, not socially.
- guelo 2y ago
  It's impossible, even for Feynman, to understand how to create everything. In your example the Amish idea of "we" is religious bias — each Amish individual doesn't know how to create everything, they choose to rely only on other Amish, shunning the knowledge of others. "we" can also take on patriotic bias, as in, "we" don't build anything anymore because it's all made in China, thus excluding China from that "we". The fading globalist dream of the 90s was that "we" could include everybody on our little planet.
TZubiri 2y ago
I thought his phrase was "if you cannot teach/explain it, you do not understand it", and that this version was some late development.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jelder 2y ago

There's another corollary that always struck me as true: “To see is to forget the name of the thing one sees.” -- Paul Valéry Posted on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40700530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40700530

frugalmail 2y ago

>"What I cannot teach, I do not understand" This is really more in line to some of the things Feynman communicated in many of his interviews. I feel like it more accurately reflects the way Feynman approached things. He was such a loss. RIP

ChuckMcM 2y ago
Have you ever asked yourself why this version (with 'create' in it) was on his black board?
- frugalmail 2y ago
  I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

gregschlom 2y ago

> "What I cannot teach, I do not understand" And the corollary to that, from 17th century French writer Nicolas Boileau: "Ce que l'on conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." - What we understand well, we express clearly, and words to describe it flow easily.

fouronnes3 2y ago
I'm french and I have a great memory about that quote. In high school my litterature and physics teachers had a disagreement about it, although I believe they didn't know about each other's point of views. Only us the students did, as they each hand waved great insights about the world with this quote. One was arguing, much like you, about the profound truth there is to it. The other was quick to explain that they perfectly conceived how to ride a bicycle, but like most of us couldn't possibly teach it at a blackboard. I leave it to you to guess which was which :)
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  I would say that if you can't explain on a blackboard how to ride a bicycle, then that simply means you do not understand how to ride a bicycle. You can do a thing without understanding it. I would guess very few bike riders really understand what all makes the act work even though they all can perform the act. Maybe no one can learn how to ride a bike purely from a blackboard but that is a seperat issue about physicality. But the quote is really about understanding, and the forces and effects that go into the act of riding a bike are both understandable and explicable. Anyone who understands them can describe them on a blackboard. So the quote holds water even in the case of riding a bike. I would say anyway. Maybe there are other examples and bike riding just wasn't the best example to invalidate the quote.
- jonahx 2y ago
  Literature professor = bike argument? That's were I put my money, but I could see it going either way. This can devolve into a definitional argument, but I actually think it's fair to say we don't understand how we ride a bike. We have many abilities and fluencies we don't understand, or only partially understand, in the sense that we can't break them down into pieces easily and transmit the information. That perspective feels more accurate to me than saying I understand how I ride a bike because I can ride a bike, though in common usage the phrase "I understand how to ride a bike" would be perfectly acceptable. The subtle distinction between the phrase "knows how to" and "understands" hints at the difference here.

jimbokun 2y ago

This is even more relevant in the LLM era. LLMs can spit out an answer to a question. But if you cannot understand and assess those claims at a deep level, you are not adding any value to the process.

baxtr 2y ago

Love his books! Although, it seems like he’s getting a bad rep these days. How did that happen? PS: I’m referring to that video that pops up on top when you google him for example.

tovej 2y ago
He hasn't written a single book (surprising I know), I assume you're talking about "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", which contains exaggerated anecdotes designed to make Feynman look like a hero. That one was written by a fanboy (Ralph Leighton) based on stories that Feynman told him, which have been revealed to be either fake or exaggerations (they found notes in his office of him writing and rewriting these hero stories). It's a terrible book, in my opinion. If you want to know why, Angela Collier says it better and in more detail than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKpj2ISQAc Is that the video you're referring to? Watch the video and I think you'll see why he is "getting a bad rep these days".
adastra22 2y ago
All the first page results of my Google search are positive, except for the one video (not near the top of the results) that has a provocative title but is 2 hours long. I’m not going to watch that. Can you link to the negative stuff you’re seeing?
- baxtr 2y ago
  That is the one I was talking about. Watching the first 5 minutes is enough I think.
  - scintill76 2y ago
    I’ve watched 2 Angela Collier videos on him albeit in the background — you’d probably have to watch the whole thing to truly understand the “bad rep” and I can’t speak to how widespread the bad rep is. My memory is, misogyny, cringey stories that were surely greatly exaggerated and just happen to make Feynman the smartest guy in every room, kind of a jerk in general, divorce due to claimed domestic violence, never did the work of writing a book personally but has the reputation of being a prolific author, his pop appeal makes people elevate him to the very top minds of physics when the work of others was much more impactful.

pmarreck 2y ago

My version of this was realizing at some point "What I can understand, I can control"

hcs 2y ago

> "What I cannot teach, I do not understand" I tend to agree, but teaching another person is also a whole different set of skills from being able to drive something yourself. One prominent example is the "curse of knowledge"; it may take a lot of practice becoming a beginner to be able to teach for a beginner's perspective in your area of expertise.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fknorangesite 2y ago
God, thank you. I really dislike the old aphorism that if you can't teach something you don't understand it. Teaching is a whole complicated skill unto itself, especially if one is teaching to beginners. Like (since we're on HN), how easy is it to imagine someone very good at programming but would be a terrible choice as a Comp Sci 101 prof? I'm guessing "very." The whole idea deeply undermines teachers of all subjects.
- K0balt 2y ago
  I think that “teach” has a different meaning here. There is “understanding something well enough to elaborate it in its entirety” (the technical capacity to teach it) and then there is the former + “and have the skill/talent of being able to explain it to a wide variety of other people from different backgrounds.”

somat 2y ago

A similar thing I heard about the amish, is that it is not that they are anti technology, it is that they Don't want technology they can't control, basically if unable to make from raw materials they don't want it. Now I don't think this is entirely the way things are, I suspect there is a core of truth with a lot of religion and tradition surrounding it. But I have a lot of sympathy for wanting to have the freedom that control over your environment grants you. Personally I would hate to give up my tech. and remain a willing slave to the manufactures.

dinkumthinkum 2y ago
That's not really true about the Amish. I've never heard that interpretation. It is more complicated than and Amish do use technology in limited ways but it boils down to not wanting to disrupt their family with technology and also the complicated process of integrating new technology into their lifestyles.
yencabulator 2y ago
> it is that they Don't want technology they can't control, basically if unable to make from raw materials they don't want it. Lots of Amish farmers use a computer. They just keep it separate, and don't let it invade their home and decide their life. Think landline phone on a farm, but also the phone is in an outdoor phone booth and used only for unavoidable things like ordering seeds, not socially.
guelo 2y ago
It's impossible, even for Feynman, to understand how to create everything. In your example the Amish idea of "we" is religious bias — each Amish individual doesn't know how to create everything, they choose to rely only on other Amish, shunning the knowledge of others. "we" can also take on patriotic bias, as in, "we" don't build anything anymore because it's all made in China, thus excluding China from that "we". The fading globalist dream of the 90s was that "we" could include everybody on our little planet.

TZubiri 2y ago

I thought his phrase was "if you cannot teach/explain it, you do not understand it", and that this version was some late development.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]