Banner
    Feynman Meets YouTube
    By Michael White | December 21st 2008 05:15 PM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Michael

    Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature,

    ...

    View Michael's Profile
    A friend was telling me the other day about a class he plans on taking on the philosophy of science. When I hear philosophy of science, I immediately think Richard Feynman. Feynman was, of course, not a philosopher, but a scientist par excellence. His lectures are filled with insights like these:

    There is always the possibility of proving any definite [well-defined] theory wrong; but notice that we can never proce it right. Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simple not proved wrong. In the future you could compute a wider range of consequences, there could be a wider range of experiments, and you might then discover that the thing is wrong... We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.





    Another most interesting change in the ideas and philosophy of science brought about by quantum mechanics is this: it is not possible to predict exactly what will happen in any circumstance.... nature, as we understand it today, behaves in such a way that it is fundamentally impossible to make a precise prediction of exactly what will happen in a given experiment. This is a horrible thing; in fact, philosophers have said before that one of the fundamental requisites of science is that whenever you set up the same conditions, the same thing must happen. This is simply not true, it is not a fundamental condition of science. The fact is that the same thing does not happen, that we can only find an average, statistically, as to what happens. Nevertheless, science has not completely collapsed. Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong. For example, some philosopher or other said it is fundamental to the scientific effort that if an experiment is performed in, say, Stockholm, and then the same experiment is done in, say, Quito, the same results must occur. That is quite false. It is not necessary that science do that; it may be a fact of experience, but it is not necessary. For example, if one of the experiments is to look out at the sky and see the aurora borealis in Stockholm, you do not see it in Quito; that is a different phenomenon. "But," you say, "that is something that has to do with the outside; can you close yourself up in a box in Stockholm and pull down the shade and get any difference?" Surely. If we take a pendulum on a universal joint, and pull it out and let go, then the pendulum will swing almost in a plane, but not quite. Slowly the plane keeps changing in Stockholm, but not in Quito. The blinds are down too. The fact that this happened does not bring on the destruction of science. What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test f the validity of any idea is experiment. (Lecture 2, Basic Physics, from the Feynman Lectures on Physics)


    Feynman addicts like myself were for years limited to the high-priced books of Feynman's various lectures and anecdotes. Now, with the rise of YouTube, you can watch hours of Feynman on the net: documentaries, videos of lectures, news interviews, etc.

    A good place to start is with the grainy video of the 1964 Messenger Lectures, which Feynman gave at Cornell and which were turned into his classic The Character of Physical Law:




    Feynman was not only a superb scientist; he was also a legendary teacher and lecturer. Essentially all of his books are transcripts of lectures. Thanks to YouTube, you can now watch those lectures instead of just reading them.

    Comments

    Steve Davis
    There's also an interesting account of Feynman in "From Eros to Gaia" by Freeman Dyson.
    Richard Feynman was awesome!
    I stumbled across him when searching for something unrelated to physics and after listening to him only once, I have tried to get hold of all of his material ever since.
    This man's balance on life was totally different. He breaks all the moulds of a typical scientist and he knew how to enjoy life as well as discover it's complexities and he could impart those qualities to those whom he met/met him.

    He would teach anyone with an ear to listen and it mattered not what level of their understanding - I believe the only type of people he didn't have much time for were those that pretended they knew something when they didn't. Listen to the series Los Alomos from below and you understand that he never pretended to know something when he didn't. He had such a high integrity that when he discovered why the shuttle failed and it was politically bad for him to expose the governments incompetence, he still published the truth even though it would cost him dearly! (no wonder they hid his findings in an appendix).
    He is able to cause a spark of light that quickly turns into a raging fire within anyone who reads his works - he was and through his writings, still is an incredible man who inspires. I wish he had lived 50 years later then I might have had the chance to meet him in person because he's inspired me one step removed from knowing him in person, how much more the inspiration had I met him in person.

    adaptivecomplexity
    That's exactly why so many people love Feynman. He's been criticized as a poseur, someone too excessively concerned about promoting a certain image. But that's not why Feynman has been embraced by the public - science has lots of poseurs (as Timothy Ferris points out in his intro to Feynman's letters), and they don't become famous. Feynman effectively embodied and communicated what is best about science - that's why people love his lectures and books.
    Mike
    Neither of the clips work; seems they were both removed for copyright infringements.

    adaptivecomplexity
    I'm not sure where to find the first clip now, but the second one is now here. Bill Gates loved Feynman's Messenger Lectures so much that he bought the rights for them and put them up on Microsoft's website, which is both good and bad. It's great to have them all available at high quality in one place. I'm annoyed that I can no longer watch them on my iPod Touch because you need that MS Silverlight thing to play them.
    Mike
    I love reading about Feynman, his love of science, his love of life, etc., and I agree that he is in many ways truly inspirational. But he was human and had his foibles and biases and I disagree with the claim that all you have to do is "Listen to the series Los Alomos from below and you understand that he never pretended to know something when he didn't." A case in point is his dismissive view of philosophy and his simplistic way of taking certain philosophical ideas out of context, not to mention some of his own commitments to philosophical positions which he seems not to be aware of. I won't argue the point here, but some of the readers of this blog might be interested in this reaction from someone with a background in both science and the humanities:
    http://www.thoughtsandvisions.com/feynlet.pdf
    Thank you.