Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Richard Feynman was regarded as one of the most brilliant minds in his field (theoretical physics) in the post World War II era. ‘The Meaning of It All’ is a series of 3 lectures in which he “explores problems in the borderline between science and philosophy, religion, and society.” These lectures were presented in April 1963 at the University of Washington (Seattle). The language is appropriate for an audience of laypeople; no scientific background is required.
I’ve always thought of science as precise, so it was interesting to read Feynman’s thoughts on the uncertainties of science:
“Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.”
Feynman talks about how it is the scientist's job to try to prove himself wrong.
When he discusses religion, he talks about the meaning of life and how it is felt that if humans could discover the meaning of life, then some great power would be unleashed. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and many others have tried to answer this question. Feynman says the answer to the meaning of it all is unknown. He calls this admission “the open channel” and ascertains that this attitude “permits a possibility of alteration, of thinking, of new contributions and new discoveries for the problem of developing a way to do what we want ultimately, even when we do not know what we want.”
Feynman says, “it is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.”
He has quite a few things to say about the wonders of science. I can sense his awe. Uncertainty does not bother him. He seems to think that absolute faith and dogmatism are problematic because then people start insisting that everyone else has to see things the same way they do. In some cases they will even go against their own basic principles to “maintain that what they said was true.”
It’s a slim book with some food for thought and some insight into Feynman. His thoughts ramble at times but mostly his logic is easy to follow. It was intriguing to follow along with the thoughts of a brilliant mind and clarify some of my own thoughts over old arguments. One reviewer commented that Feynman used a working man’s language. I agree that he made these lectures accessible to anyone. Another reviewer commented that they are not representative of his best talks or writing. As I’ve never read anything by him before, it’s hard for me to comment on that. However, some of the science I’ve read lately, for example, by Merlin Sheldrake in ‘Entangled Life’ would put this in the shade.
My new favorite person. This's my second time reading something by Richard Feynman. And he's absolutely brilliant. He has a charming personality & it's obvious from his way of writing. Can't wait to read more. As Einstein has once said: "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand well enough." And this's exactly what feynman is good at, keeping it simple .
There's not much here that a scientist probably has not thought of on their own, nor is it expressed in a way that would make you pause and think of things in a new way, but the historical context (civil rights, space exploration, cold war) and the fact that it is a self-admitted brain dump by Freynman, make it a worthwhile read.
An exemplary public lecture on what science is and how it functions.
The first two parts/lectures focus on the core components of science and are the best parts. The third is much more idiosyncratic (as Feynman himself attests).
Feynman speaks at a fairly abstracted level, so I'm wary of criticizing him too much, but I do think two of his descriptions of science are difficult to reconcile (even as each helpfully describes important parts of the scientific endeavor):
Early on in the first part, Feynman notes that science is a system of objective observations (not much is said more about the debates in philosophy of science as to what kind of objectivity this is or how it relates to the demarcation problem). It seems Feynman is meaning objectivity in the sense of moving past anecdotes and subjectivity. However, at another point he stresses that science does not give us objective truth, but educated guesses. To put these two claims together, one might naively conclude that science gives us objective guesses. But that doesn't sound right. This distinction might have been better made using 'bias' or 'dogma' instead of implicating the contentious and ambiguous objective-subjective distinction.
Morever, Feynman dispels the possible knowledge of objective truth when addressing the question: Why does science change laws? He notes how experiments are always inaccurate and laws are really guessed laws—extrapolations from the available data. By building up data from increasingly accurate experiments, we can have better guesses and more readily dismiss certain ideas that don't fit the data. But we never can rest assured of our results. We never get objective truth.
In this explanation Feynman alludes to Karl Popper's notion of science as a falsifiable endeavor: we don’t know for sure what is the case, but we do have more and more ideas about what is not the case. Scientific laws and theories are summaries of findings, they always leave something out. All "conclusions" are uncertain.
Scientists are fine with this lack of certain knowledge. They take doubt seriously. Feynman shows how this attitude actually allows new possibilities and reassessment of prior evidence. It's not disappointing or limiting, it is actually generative and freeing. As a citizen-scientist, Feynman recommends this attitude and skepticism to his lay audience. With this scientific humility we might hope for less reliance on charismatic anecdotes and more for the clear and careful progress.
Feynman's recommendation is no doubt a good one and his descriptions of science are clear and mostly unproblematic (despite my above quibbles on terminology used). But this lecture serves mostly as an introduction to science, it doesn't directly take up any debates or advance new descriptions. It's good, not great.
The first two parts/lectures focus on the core components of science and are the best parts. The third is much more idiosyncratic (as Feynman himself attests).
Feynman speaks at a fairly abstracted level, so I'm wary of criticizing him too much, but I do think two of his descriptions of science are difficult to reconcile (even as each helpfully describes important parts of the scientific endeavor):
Early on in the first part, Feynman notes that science is a system of objective observations (not much is said more about the debates in philosophy of science as to what kind of objectivity this is or how it relates to the demarcation problem). It seems Feynman is meaning objectivity in the sense of moving past anecdotes and subjectivity. However, at another point he stresses that science does not give us objective truth, but educated guesses. To put these two claims together, one might naively conclude that science gives us objective guesses. But that doesn't sound right. This distinction might have been better made using 'bias' or 'dogma' instead of implicating the contentious and ambiguous objective-subjective distinction.
Morever, Feynman dispels the possible knowledge of objective truth when addressing the question: Why does science change laws? He notes how experiments are always inaccurate and laws are really guessed laws—extrapolations from the available data. By building up data from increasingly accurate experiments, we can have better guesses and more readily dismiss certain ideas that don't fit the data. But we never can rest assured of our results. We never get objective truth.
In this explanation Feynman alludes to Karl Popper's notion of science as a falsifiable endeavor: we don’t know for sure what is the case, but we do have more and more ideas about what is not the case. Scientific laws and theories are summaries of findings, they always leave something out. All "conclusions" are uncertain.
Scientists are fine with this lack of certain knowledge. They take doubt seriously. Feynman shows how this attitude actually allows new possibilities and reassessment of prior evidence. It's not disappointing or limiting, it is actually generative and freeing. As a citizen-scientist, Feynman recommends this attitude and skepticism to his lay audience. With this scientific humility we might hope for less reliance on charismatic anecdotes and more for the clear and careful progress.
Feynman's recommendation is no doubt a good one and his descriptions of science are clear and mostly unproblematic (despite my above quibbles on terminology used). But this lecture serves mostly as an introduction to science, it doesn't directly take up any debates or advance new descriptions. It's good, not great.
Feynman was also a great man of morals IMO.
The transcripts of three lectures, so the book is concise and has the informal feel of a discussion in front of a general audience.
The word "science" has three meanings in general culture: (1) a way of finding the truth, (2) a set of wonderful discoveries, and (3) technologies. It's that first meaning that most interests him, and which he discusses in the context of our every day approach to a world that is too complicated to understand.
His take on religion is reassuringly undogmatic. The scientific method is to be skeptical about everything. We *want* new ideas, so don't rule anything out. But unlike math, in which everything is true or false, there are no final certainties in science: truth is about *likelihood", and it can be shattered with a single experiment.
He *does* rip apart some ideas, like astrology for example, or certain kinds of faith healing. Don't waste your time on ideas that have internally inconsistent or conspiracy-minded ways of thinking. But he emphasizes that scientific truth comes in degrees; don't shut out anything a priori.
Good advice.
The word "science" has three meanings in general culture: (1) a way of finding the truth, (2) a set of wonderful discoveries, and (3) technologies. It's that first meaning that most interests him, and which he discusses in the context of our every day approach to a world that is too complicated to understand.
His take on religion is reassuringly undogmatic. The scientific method is to be skeptical about everything. We *want* new ideas, so don't rule anything out. But unlike math, in which everything is true or false, there are no final certainties in science: truth is about *likelihood", and it can be shattered with a single experiment.
He *does* rip apart some ideas, like astrology for example, or certain kinds of faith healing. Don't waste your time on ideas that have internally inconsistent or conspiracy-minded ways of thinking. But he emphasizes that scientific truth comes in degrees; don't shut out anything a priori.
Good advice.
I just read this interesting little book I found in my closet this morning. I saved this book from the decommissioning of the Todd Holden library in Murfreesboro. :) Shows a side of Feynman in 1963 that is a bit more philosophical. Many references to the Soviet Union. Most young folks don't realize the level of paranoia that existed in those times. In fact, I was very pessimistic about "The Russians" up until the wall fell in the late 80s.
challenging
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
funny
reflective
medium-paced
reflective