202306031144 Status: #person #🧍 Tags: #science #epistemology # Richard Feynman > *The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other(s).* > — [[03 Beta Notes/Richard Feynman]] #quote Feynman was a 20th century Nobel-winning physicist known for his diagrams, lectures, bongo-playing, philandering and originality. He was the best. They called him "The Great Explainer." His legendary explanations were a unique combination of engaging and illuminating: he had a way of breaking down complex concepts and conveying them with clarity and creativity. Some of his more highfalutin explanations included: coming up with the field of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED); clarifying the behaviour of subatomic particles with simple diagrams ([Feynman Diagrams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram)); and explaining what happened with the [Challenger Disaster.](http://www.feynman.com/science/the-challenger-disaster/) But he's almost as famous for his layman explanations of the fundamental elements of physics, captured in books like "[Six Easy Pieces](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pieces-Helix-Richard-Feynman-1994-12-30/dp/B01K0TTZ2E/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=)" and "[Six Not-So-Easy Pieces](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Relativity-Space-Time/dp/0465025269/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1685790098&sr=1-8)". Albert Einstein attended Feynman’s first talk as a graduate student, and Bill Gates was so inspired by his pedagogy that [he called Feynman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoJh6oYAXE), “the greatest teacher I never had.” Just watch him [vibe out on how _jiggly_ fire is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1pIYI5JQLE&ab_channel=nebulajr), for eg. Feynman is quoted as saying "What I cannot create, I do not understand." He believed that the only way to work something out yourself is to have a firm understanding of each step of the reasoning involved. Once, when asked to explain a particular behaviour of sub-atomic particles, he told his colleague "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it." But he came back a few days later to say, > "I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don't really understand it." > — [[05 Love + Money/Richard Feynman]] #quote # Key Ideas 1. [[The Feynman Technique]] 2. # Quotes I would like to add something that’s not essential to the scientist, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results. For example–let’s take advertising again–suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you–they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done. When I was in graduate school at Princeton a kind of dumb psychology paper came out that stirred up a lot of discussion. The author had decided that the thing controlling the “time sense” in the brain is a chemical reaction involving iron. I thought to myself, “Now, how the hell could he figure that?” It’s natural to explain an idea in terms of what you already have in your head. Concepts are piled on top of each other: This idea is taught in terms of that idea, and that idea is taught in terms of another idea, which comes from counting, which can be so different for different people! “I think the theory is simply a way to sweep the difficulties under the rug,” Richard Feynman said. “I am, of course, not sure of that.” “you’re looking for whatever the hell it is that you find!” — Richard Feynman Feynman: Rather doesn’t make any difference: I get what I get. I had a calculus book once that said, “What one fool can do, another can.” What we’ve been able to work out about nature may look abstract and threatening to someone who hasn’t studied it, but it was fools who did it, and in the next generation, all the fools will understand it. — Richard Feynman Feynman: It isn’t the philosophy that gets me, it’s the pomposity. If they’d just laugh at themselves! If they’d just say, “I think it’s like this, but von Leipzig thought it was like that, and he had a good shot at it, too.” If they’d explain that this is their best guess . . . But so few of them do; instead, they seize on the possibility that there may not be any ultimate fundamental particle, and say that you should stop work and ponder with great profundity. [At this point the interview adjourned to Professor Feynman’s office, where the tape recorder refused to start again. The cord, power switch, “record” button, all were in order; then Feynman suggested taking the tape cassette out and putting it in again.] Feynman: There. See, you just have to know about the world. Physicists know about the world. Omni: Take it apart and put it back together? Feynman: Right. There’s always a little dirt, or infinity, or something. # Bibliography - --- # References -