[extropy-chat] Feynman's 1963 Lecture - The Uncertainty of Science

[Brett Paatsch]

Robin Hanson wrote:

>>Richard Feynman's lecture - The Uncertainty of Science
>>
>>April 1963.
>>-----------
>>... So in science we are not interested in where an idea comes from.
>>There is no authority who decides what is a good idea. We have lost
>> the need to go to an authority to find out whether an idea is true or 
>> not. We can read an authority and let him suggest something; we can
> > try it out and find out if its true or not. If it is not true, so much 
> > the worse - so the "authorities" lose some of their "authority". ...

>>In  physics there are so many accumulated observations that it is almost 
>>impossible to think of a new idea which is different from all the
>> ideas that have been thought of before and yet that agrees with all the
>> observations that have already been made.  And so if you get anything
>> new from anyone, anywhere, you welcome it, and you do not argue why the 
>> other person says it is so. ...

>>Most people find it surprising that in science there is no interest in the
>>background of the author of an idea or in his motive in expounding it.
>> You listen, and if it sounds like a thing worth trying, a thing that 
>> could
>> be tried, is different, and is not obviously contrary to something 
>> observed before, it gets exciting and worthwhile. You do not have to
>> worry about how long he has studied or why he wants you to listen to
>> him. ...

> Dear Richard had to be pretty caught up in his rhetoric to say these 
> whoppers.  Scientists most definitely pay attention to the people pushing
> an idea, including how long they have studied.  There are in practice more
> ideas proposed than people have time to evaluate in much detail.  So most 
> are rejected (regarding publication, funding, jobs) without knowing
> whether those ideas conflict with observations or not.  There are 
> definitely
> authorities who decide to reject or not, and they most certainly pay
> attention to where the advocate comes from when making this decision.
> And dear Richard knew this full well.

I'm glad you read that post and pulled out those excerpts Robin. I'm not
surprised by your reaction as I'd also continued reading pretty closely
some of your writings over the holiday particularly _Could Gambling Save
Science?_      [Aside: That contains some interesting stuff btw, especially
the "denser" bits where some nuts and bolts of implementation are
considered. I'd like to discuss that with you some time if your willing.
See also http://www.entrepitec.com/Terrorism_Futures_article_page.html
the last paragraph. Surely 50 years is too long to wait. ]

Whilst, obviously, I like the Feynman lecture (I was sufficiently impressed
with it to type it into digital form so I could use it), I do not hold 
Feynman
as beyond criticism, and as I was going through his lectures I was aware 
that
Feynman was very much an "insider" rather than an "outsider" in the terms
of your above essay.

When Feynman speaks of "we" in the lecture, it often struck me as being
a particularly restricted sort of "we". A set that certainly always included
Feynman in it, and I think in fairness to him, a set that he always meant to
extend to *some* others than his own Nobel-laureate-in-physics-level
self.

For all Feynman's showmanship and skill in explaining and popularising
science, and notwithstanding my pleasure that the world occasionally
produces people like Feynman that can give lectures like he did, there
are times when it struck me in a different sense that almost only Feynman
could think and speak as he did.

He seems to have the sort of separated egalitarianism that reminds of
someone like Marie Antoinette (if memory serves) who on hearing that
people have no bread, says that, they should be "let" "eat cake".

I can *almost* imagine Feynman suggesting folks just get on out and
do some observing and testing right after the lecture on there very own
garage synchrotrons and supercolliders and then to be sure to send him
a cheerio if they find anything interesting.

Brett Paatsch