Richard Feynman: The Key to Science in 63 Seconds

[Are_grits_groceries]

Richard Feynman — Nobel-winning physics icon, curiosity champion, graphic novel hero, bongo drummer, wager-maker, no ordinary genius — would have been 94 today. To celebrate, here is one of Feynman’s most beloved classics, a 1964 lecture in which he distills with equal parts wit and wisdom the essence of the scientific method:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

Here, Feynman corroborates beautifully what Stuart Firestein pinpointed nearly six decades later as the most important driver of science — ignorance, or the capacity to be wrong.
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/

Love Feynman!

[PCIntern]

1. He is my scientific hero...

one of the Nobel Laureates, it MIGHT have been Murray Gell-Mann, said that there were many geniuses but very very few magicians. Feynman was a magician.

[longship]

2. Which is in itself an all the more astounding statement

Gell-Mann and Feynman had a very famous rivalry at CalTech. But in science, such things are irrelevant. It's not important what a person thinks, it's how they think.

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. Feynman was a trip.

He played practical jokes at Los Alamos.
He also seemed to have a brain in any and everything that came his way. I don't think he was ever scared of anything.

[applegrove]

4. Love him.

[kentauros]

5. I'm curious about this part:

then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

Okay, he states that if the guess disagrees with experiment, then it's wrong. I have no problem with that. But what happened to his statement of "experience"? Now, I haven't watched the video (it's late and I still have to run an errand before bed) so maybe he talks about it there. In the text quoted, it's ignored after it's stated, and thus my wondering why it's stated at all, or where he was going with it.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. When I watched the video, I believe he meant

observation as in observing an experiment or what occurs even if a strict experiment isn't set up. I believe he meant experience as in the experience of observing the laws of physics in some context,

Feynman seemed to intuit what the laws of physics were and how they related to everything. His sister said he just knew. Hans Bethe, a Nobel Prize winner, said that with Feynman it was impossible to understand how he made some leaps in thinking. He called him a magician.

Feynman was a great teacher and could relate what he knew quite well. However, there were areas that he did indeed seemed to possess magic. He would be proven right by finding the steps that lead to his answer later. He was able to make leaps that seemed easy to him.

My brother was like that on a much smaller scale. We both took the same engineering physics classes, but it was much easier for him. He just seemed to understand the math and laws immediately. i made the same grades, but I had to work much harder at it.

This may not be an answer that satisfies you. It's what I have concluded at this time.

[kentauros]

7. No, that was a good explanation.

Thanks!

I think I focused on his mention of that part not just because he doesn't mention it again, but that it kind of comes across as "other ways of knowing." That particular phrase will get you pounced upon by the usual suspects on another part of DU And yet, it appears that Feynman was working from that point of view initially, and then proven correct later.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. I think he was quite capable of using

a step by step process. However, at times, his mind just seemed to leap from A to M intuitively. He viewed it as one big step. Others couldn't make that leap, and they would need to find the ones in between to understand. Feynman would too if he was going to submit a formal paper.

As for the usual suspects, meh! IMHO Feynman was someone who could use any method and I would respect it. He WAS a magician.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Richard Feynman is probably one of the most intuitive geniuses this species ever produced.

His lectures are things of beauty. His logic is inescapable.

I just wish he could have made it to Tunna Tuva before he died.

He is now, and has alway been, a personal hero of mine.

[ieoeja]

9. He gave one of the best arguments ever against standardized testing in school.

Invited to Brazil he noted their high schools using our college text books for physics and scoring roughly the same as American college students on the tests in the back of the book (teacher's copy). He asked himself, "so why are there so few Brazilian physicists of note?"

He then used a test he devised and used when teaching from the same book. The Brazilian students, even college students, scored much more poorly than his college students in the United States. Many simply refused to take the test because these were not the problems they were taught.

They were learning specific solutions to specific problems rather than learning how to solve the problem. Given a different problem requiring the same knowledge, they failed. Digging further he learned that Brazilian teachers were judged by their students' grades (sound familiar?). It was in each teacher's best interest to ensure the student scored well. Learning went on the back burner and the results showed.

We should measure American success based on innovation, not test scores. Are Americans falling behind the rest of the world in this? No.

When we outsource to higher scoring countries, does quality and speed improve, or get worse? Generally worse.

When we insource H1-B1 talent, do we end up having to train them up to speed? Most often, yes.

Where is this failing education manifesting itself?