R. P. Feynman on the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

[5thxfactorjudge]

Brilliant. Feynman was the greatest physicist that ever lived... What a clear mind! I recommend everyone to watch many of his lectures.

[VikTheBrik]

1:25 He's talking about Newton's law of motion, but seemingly doesn't know it. We know why, it has to do with resultant force being zero, then it either stands still or moves at a constant pace unless a new force starts working on them (though keep in my mind that in practice there are factors such as wind etc, depending on the example).

[x1x2x3ct]

@VikTheBrik Well in fact Newton's laws are AXIOMS, i.e. left without proof (and indeed a statmenent such as "The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force" (Axiom 1) cannot be proven mathematically ...)

[ThePengwyn]

@VikTheBrik what he is trying to say is that we don't know why things will not change their motion unless acted upon by a force, or even a step further back still, why forces exist

[akalumishra]

really creative and  inspiration thoughts ........

[GuacamoleKun]

Yes, but one thing about knowing the name of something is that it can convince a lot of other people that you actually know something about the thing. And if you don't know the name, then even if you know other things about the thing people might not think you know much about it.

I'm talking about people who aren't very bright, of course, but they seem to be around a lot, so it's usually good to know the names of things just for smart-soundingness.

[marty177]

@GuacamoleKun If that really matters to you.

[GuacamoleKun]

@marty177 Well, you can't really have any impact on the world if nobody listens to you.

[elwood180]

Well my dad taught me how to shoot the bird and eat it. I find that to be far more useful.

[totoxahc]

Could any put subtitles to the video?

[EpicAthiest]

@joaomnbatista

Including you

[KlamDawg]

This video reset my entire brain. No joke.

[williamhenkel]

Hey guys, I missed the like button on accident. So did my six other friends from my parkinsons therapy group. We're sorry, Love you Feynman!!!

[mruef]

Great principle. No wonder his lectures were that popular :)

[jffryh]

whats the difference between inertia and momentum

[TheBadunka]

@jffryh Inertia cannot be tranferred to another body while momentum can. I remember it to be a property of matter, inertia.

[immortalass]

awesome dude

[PhuqueUTube3]

DrKleiner: Maybe what it is, you have not thought about the good qualities of your dad enough? There might be wonders there for you to discover.

[mbe102]

Genius...

[soviet86]

this alone makes me want to be a father, just so i can impart this way of thinking on someone from an early age.

[muglecruzle]

777 likes :)

[robbyalp]

Don't tell your kid to do stuff, tell it why it should do stuff.

[cphillips25132]

K wonderboy, you start first. Go. Hurry up. We're all waiting for you to finish changing the world so that we can start. I'm up next, cmon...

[64wonderboy]

@cphillips25132 Ok well i just got back from a 2 month trip in India teaching adults and children about proper hygiene. It's not much but its something. Now your turn.

[filterspam]

His father at least knew better than to waste his time on youtube with semantic masturbation so there's that...

[64wonderboy]

Hey everyone below me, i got an idea! Lets all waste our time arguing with each other on a video sharing website. Maybe that will solve the problems in the world.

[Darkeh112]

@64wonderboy What problems?

[kevinmac631]

@64wonderboy . . . Rabble ! Rabble ! Rabble !

[sahandn9]

Meh...

[x1x2x3ct]

@ExS50 look, it is indifferent whether it was japanese or not, as names (as feynman says) are utterly unimportant ..

But it is true that I remember someone who said that it was not portuguese as well :D (and actually I do not wish to argue that it was japanese, I may assume that 1appless is right)

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct This is another problem with Feynman's "teaching", that names are unimportant. If you are a linguist they certainly may be; if you are a politician it may be among your most important skills. What constitutes relevant knowledge depends on your perspective. Frankly, Feynman comes off here, to me, as a pompous blowhard and learning that his matters of linguistic "fact" are in error is quite interesting.

[iunnox666]

@x1x2x3ct The bird was indifferent to being japanese?

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct names are not "utterly unimportant". If you are a linguist they are central; if you are a politician names are a critical skill. Whether names constitute knowledge depends on your perspective.

I think it's very interesting that in his pompous posturing, Feynman gets the details of names wrong as well.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj Well, names are in fact mere conventions. They do not explain, or embody anything particularly interesting (at least in natural science and mathematics).

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct and neither does the question of "why" as it pertains to inertia. Names are knowledge as they pertain to certain interests just as "why" might be interesting religiously or philosophically. It appears that you're capable of understanding this, just not admitting it.

[petejonze]

@craigsj "Whether names constitute knowledge depends on your perspective." - spoken like a true, ernest philosopher. But complete nonsense. Knowing the name of something is *of course* a form of knowledge in the most trivial sense. I know that Dr. F's name was Richard. However it seems both right and astute to point out that knowing the name of something is generally not that interesting and, moreover, would often (but not always) be deemed insufficient evidence of knowing what that thing is.

[craigsj]

@petejonze Tell a politician that. The point isn't what you value or what I value, it's that it reflects the values of the person who says it. I don't personally value names as knowledge as I am a trained engineer, not a philosopher (as evidenced by my objection to the absurdity of the "why" question). Nevertheless, I am wise enough to know that it matters to some people and that the pretense of stating names in various languages that are BS shows how lame this little speech is.

[petejonze]

@craigsj I don't think concentrating on politicians/linguists is a good gambit. But yes, I concede that knowing a name is (obviously) a case of knowing, and knowing the name of X could be reasonably said to be knowing something about X. I do think that he is right to point out that there are other, often more interesting/important, things to know. On paper he does perhaps overstate the case. But then maybe he just said it as such for effect & expected us to partial out the hyperbole? Who knows?

[craigsj]

@petejonze I didn't use those examples to support my perspective but to point out that people have different points of view. If you go back to the post I responded to, you'll see that I was refuting a claim that was being made. You and I, and the speaker, agree on the relative value of such information. It is hyperbole, true at its core but wrong taken as an absolute.

[petejonze]

@petejonze oops, sort of went in a circle there. Was an overstatement to say that the quote was nonsense, not least since I arguably go on to assert it.

Also, it was potentially misleading of me to say that RF does point out the above, since that is certainly open to debate. What he actually says is that you know *nothing* about the bird. I think this is hyperbole though, and/or represents his particular framework/approach to the world (i.e. that of physical science)

[1appless]

He may know a thing or two about knowing somethign in general, but whatever he called "Japanese" was definetly not japanese.

[ExS50]

@1appless I'm sure you know and can recognize every name we have for every odd thing in english aswell, am I right?

Not saying that the name was or wasn't japanese, as I don't know, but I know there's quite a few names for random birds or animals that if I hadn't heard before I'd be really surprised that that was their english name.

On top of that, I'm pretty sure Feynman isn't Japanese, so you also have to take mispronounciation into account aswell.

[xergonus]

lol u know i dont think the uploader quite understands the point of this video lol

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct

So Newton's laws of motion are not laws but axioms. How does this make me "obviously wrong"? Supposing the father's claim that "nobody knows why it's true" is correct, what would such a "why it's true" look like of suddenly someone discovered it? Inertia is an observed phenomenon, it is what it is. Suggesting that there's a "why" component that we don't yet understand is not science.

Of course, there is also the primary point being made in the video which is also arbitrary.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj by definition, axioms are not laws (theorems). laws are derived from the axioms, which are, as written above, presumed true - one cannot 'prove' axioms. Indeed, as you said, there is experimental evidence for Newton's third axiom (inertia), but that merely supports (is not at all important whether there is experimental evidence for an axiom or not. For instance, the first Peano axiom: 0 is a natural number. There is no experimental evidence for this proposition)

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct I am eager to see where you are going with this. You seem determined to establish the semantics of a language that wasn't even used in the video and, even if it were, it was only a boyhood recollection which was more than likely distorted.

Newtonian physics is as understood as it is going to get. No one questions whether inertia exists or what it's nature is. It is observed fact. The question is whether the point in the video has any validity and what that might be.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj look, it is true that feynman called Newton's third axiom 'law of inertia'. But it seems that he used 'law' instead of 'axiom' (and so did Newton, he called the axioms ''axiomata, sive leges motus', i.e., 'axioms, or laws of motion') for one, good reason: the general public does not know what an axiom is. By definition, laws and axioms are not facts, but are based upon them. The course of the argument thus appears that inertia cannot be a mere 'fact'.

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct Well, Feynman didn't even refer to Newton's laws here at all. He related a story from his early childhood pulling a wagon. It's possible that the story isn't even true. It sure wasn't very good. ;)

You insist on driving home the minutia of language that isn't even used. Are you ever going to get to the point? Are you saying that we don't really know that inertia exists? Sooner or later you will need to explain what possible relevance the question of "why" is to inertia.

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct Feynman didn't even refer to Newton's laws, much less misrepresent them. I wonder why they are taught as laws in primary schools if they are not.

You seem determined to drive home the minutia of language that wasn't even used as if that's going to put the question to rest. Are you saying that the existence of inertia is in question? Are you ever going to explain how "why" is somehow an interesting question regarding classical physics?

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj he mentions inertia, and he of course, inertia is an axiom and not a fact. We might have observed inertia. But this does not proof the 'law' of inertia. If inertia was merely a fact, one would not call it 'law'. A priori considerations are needed in order to prove laws. But if you insist on calling inertia a fact, then I shall not waste my time any longer; facts are of lower importance than laws (and axioms) in scientific theories.

cf. the Feynman lectures on physics by the way ;)

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct No matter what, you will never get to the point. Feynman never mentions "Newton", "axiom", or "law". It is unlikely that his father would have ever tried to communicate the subtleties of the points you are trying to make to a small child pulling a wagon. Furthermore, the child would not recall it accurately 50 years later, so if you think the question here is axiom vs. law, enjoy your delusion.

It's clear that you are wasting your time since all you do is posture.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj 'There is no accepted theory that explains inertia but there are Newton's LAWS of Motion? Are you really going to get into some existential garbage argument or are you arguing the meaning of "why"? It's an idiotic statement. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, but why? Well, the earth spins, but why?' your lacking elementary knowledge about physics, obviously ;) I thus need not waste my time, indeed.

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct More posturing from someone who can only offer an esoteric distinction between "axiom" and "law" yet is unable to relate it to the issue at hand.

If you feel I lack elementary knowledge "about" physics, perhaps you could point what I have said that is wrong. If your recent written communication skills are any indication, you are over your head.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj The distinction between axiom and law is by no means esoteric, actually, it is an extremely fundamental one. Albeit I am not a native speeker, I may assume that one might be able to understand my explanations?

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct Your opinion on the distinction and it's fundamental value doesn't concern me, what does is the fact that you never get around to relating it to the point at hand. You continue to insist that inertia is an "axiom" and not a fact. What exactly are you trying to say and how does it relate to a video that, increasingly, it appears you haven't even watched?

If all you do is reiterate that Newton's laws are actually axioms, then I suggest you follow your instincts and not waste the time.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj for the sake of brevity:

1) the validity of your statement (quoted below) depends a great deal on the 'axiom-vs-law' issue

2) is it true that this issue is a mere detail, but it is quite startling to call Feynman's statement 'idiotic', since it is obviously not.

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct There you go again, saying nothing at all yet pretending to be the keeper of knowledge. I'm not sure what statement of mine you are referring to, but I am sure that you are making any.

To start over, the claim was that no one knows why the ball moves back and forth in the wagon, that the explanation offered is inertia but no one understands why that is. Critical to you is the difference between "axiom" versus "law", but that says nothing about the validity of the claim.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj indeed no one knows why inertia is true. Because its an axiom, and we do not know whether axioms are true or not, you see? the statement was: 'There is no accepted theory that explains inertia but there are Newton's LAWS of Motion? Are you really going to get into some existential garbage argument or are you arguing the meaning of "why"? It's an idiotic statement. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, but why? Well, the earth spins, but why?'

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct Yes, I see. You're using a circular argument---no one "knows" because it's an axiom and an "axiom" means "no one knows". It is not a proof or justification of any kind and of course we "know" that inertia exists. The question is WHY inertia exists and what does that question really mean. You see, you are wallowing in a question I was beyond before the start of your posturing. Utlimately this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. As science it is irrational.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj physical science is not about why things exist, but rather about how they behave..

apparently, you do not agree that it is an axiom, so be it, then it is (at least in your opinion) a mere fact, and facts are uninteresting, since they do not explain, or at least describe. thus it is indeed a waste of time.

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct "physical science is not about why things exist, but rather about how they behave.."

You are now speaking my language. It is clear that inertia exists and that it is well understood science. The boyhood problem in the video is entirely explained by Newtonian physics. In that context, what does the question of "why" really mean and what does it mean to say that "no one knows why"? What is it about inertia that isn't understood?

No scientist would say that facts are uninteresting.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj well, facts are not totally uninteresting; but in comparison with laws, theories, and so forth, they are. Facts do not tell you how something behaves. Laws (theorems), on the contrary, allow you to make predictions, whilst facts merely allow you to compare the predictions with reality. In this sense, facts are of only secondary importance.

I do not deny that inertia has been observed, but I wish to know whether it is a law worth the name.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj further, it seems that what is not understood about inertia is whether it is a law (an axiom, strictly speaking) or a mere fact. Whether it is something more general, one of the very principles of nature, or whether it is observed under very specific conditions only. Assuming inertia to be an axiom, it follows that knowledge of the 'why' of intertia lies outside our epistemological grasp (this being the case for many laws of nature, see Dretske's paper 'laws of nature').

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct I fail to see how any of that has any bearing on the "wagon problem" in the video. There is no doubt that Newtonian physics is all that's needed there. "Why" inertia exists in that context doesn't matter at all, if that's indeed what is even meant by "why". I see the question of "why" in that context to be like a child that won't understand any explanation you can offer. Maybe you can't ultimately answer "why" but that doesn't mean no one "knows".

[jameshowlett1991]

@craigsj You must be great to have at parties.

[x1x2x3ct]

@craigsj primary schools: the illusion of understanding something... ;)

[craigsj]

@x1x2x3ct right, we deliberately teach our children lies so as to create the illusion of understanding. I see where you are going with this now...

[x1x2x3ct]

well, @craigsj, the 'law' of inertia is actually an axiom. So, what is an axiom? (apparently you are unaware of this notion): 'An axiom is one of a select set of propositions, presumed true by a system of logic or a theory, from which all other propositions which the system or theory endorses as true are deducible—these derived propositions being called *theorems of the system or theory.' (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy).

[craigsj]

@theLeezusMan

There is no accepted theory that explains inertia but there are Newton's LAWS of Motion? Are you really going to get into some existential garbage argument or are you arguing the meaning of "why"? It's an idiotic statement. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, but why? Well, the earth spins, but why?

Eventually, all these stupid arguments end up at God. We have Newton's laws, we don't need additional theories for "why".

[craigsj]

"You're criticizing Richard Feynman's knowledge of physics?"

No, I criticize what what was said in the video.

"That, he said, nobody knows. ... This tendency is called inertia, but nobody knows why it's true."

This is an idiotic statement, and it can directly from his mouth.

[xtac1080]

@craigsj

What a sad troll you are.

[xtac1080]

@craigsj

What a sad troll you are.

[theLeezusMan]

@craigsj

Tell you what, buddy. When you've accomplished what Mr Feynman has in the field of physics, you can go ahead and criticize him. The amazing thing though, is you insult him and proclaim how wrong he is, but you don't correct him. You don't explain why he is wrong or why that statement is idiotic. And I'll tell you why you don't. Because YOU'RE wrong. There really is no accepted theory that explains inertia. Go ahead, try and find one.

[gilbertn]

@craigsj As others have observed you are hilariously wrong. :)

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"This is an idiotic statement, and it can directly from his mouth."

Why is it idiotic? It's true, even today, thought at least now we have some *attempts* to explain it, though none that have been experimentally confirmed.

[craigsj]

If my dad told me that no one knew why inertia exists I wouldn't be telling stories about his greatness as a teacher. It would appear that this guy, and his father, by knowing the name of a bird in so many languages yet failing to understand remedial physics, ARE the very underachieving intellects they criticize.

[nebulamax123]

@craigsj

You're criticizing Richard Feynman's knowledge of physics? HAHAHAHAHAHHA. Goddamn youre stupid.

[Dzotshen]

2 people must've labeled something they don't know anything about.

[hpmika]

Dr. Feynman's dad must have been one great dad.

[Staria6x111]

I wish I had a dad like his.

[r0sw3l]

Could someone write what he says? The automatic translation sucks

[xtac1080]

@r0sw3l

English or foreign languages?

[ovniforos]

That's the difference between knowledge and wisdom too :P

[leonid1995]

2 people have thumbed down this video.

[watheer1]

The one person that dislikes this video maybe is adopted

[TheJohn8765]

My god, you can see the immense intellect simmering behind those eyes.

[rangasurfer]

why stumble why?

[atomed2]

You dislike this video, you are proud of being an idiot.

[JacobTurner21]

The one person that dislikes this video only knew the name of the clip.

[StellarSwarmMusic]

@JacobTurner21 Or maybe...that one person disliked it just so you could be that guy who, just like on every other god damned video on youtube, makes a joke about the people who have thumbs downed a video.

[LieutenantSmith]

Wow, I went "the ball moves forward because of its inertia" - and then Feynman goes "nobody knows *why* the ball moves" and I was like "omg".

[jpatton1989]

his dad makes a good point

[DrKleiner]

god my dad is shit

[TheScurvyNinja]

@codependent The point is that the name doesn't matter...

[joshuaoha]

@codependent Yeah, you are right. He didn't really say the right word for most of the linguistic examples he gave. But the point he is making is right on.

[photogasm5]

@codependent Missed the point entirely.

[gluposti]

Most of the people forget this and are consequently confused in their discussions.

[dirac17]

What a great father Richard must have had.

[imaijer]

I love him more and more he explaines stuff so very very clear and simple