... forgiven. Not only did I learn from his descriptions of nature - but I also learned from his errors - science and research cannot be distributed as open as it was before - since there are those who will try to misuse it over and over. But as long as only the limited minds exist in science as they do right now (f.e. CERN) - who are rather concerned with honors than with describing nature thoroughly - there's nothing to be afraid of.
Feynman liked to investigate - but when it came to humans and their intentions - he failed. When continuing his work after WW2 ended, he "simply didn't think" about why he was continuing to do so. Since he didn't have a history which could have pre-informed and therefore altered this his errors are...
To the individuals below me, a proof is something which deems a system to be consistent and coherent with itself. It means that "given that these are what exist, this can be deduced from it". Being a law simply implies that it has been verified enough, and given accordance with a proof, to say that this is the case thus far. Both having nothing to do with truth, and are more equivalent to references when furthering test data and one's understanding. Like his chess example.
@ACANOFSODA truth! the reason there are no laws in psychology are A) we can not physically prove through interpreting data where exactly any conceptualization of ideas occurs. We know that a large portion of abstract thought and personal feelings to ourselves is produced in the cerebral cortex, but there is still other brain activity occurring at the same time. Until we have figured out the medium or "wave length" on which thought travels and be accurately measured, we have no way of proving
@hibob91122 any of the THEORIES that have been made over the past 80 years or so. B) reality is completely and totally built off the perception of the individual, meaning your interpretation of concepts and words are based of your own experience and understanding of those "symbols" making it so that even if we could develop a "law" to connect all these abstract concepts, they would only hold true for that individual and change based off too many unknown factors.
Love that first bit that bridges the parts. Darwin had the same opinion, that what allowed him to do so much good work was long stretches of uninterrupted time for thought.
Even if society was more honest it wouldn't make psychology a true science (please appreciate that I still think psychology is worth studying). Once technology and our understanding of the brain catches up with what psychology attempts to measure, then it has a chance of becoming a true science. Let me put it to you like this, what separates a stargazer from an astrophysicist?
@blahdelablah We can measure the cause, the reason people get depressed is chemical. Plus, psychology is the study of mental pattern. Personality can be measured and compared by their complexity, which you get from their impact.
"We can measure the cause, the reason people get depressed is chemical." This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes it pseudoscience, you can't just dismiss a response as chemical, you have to know everything about those reactions, such as why they are produced, what other chemicals in the body they react with, how the brain interprets the chemical reaction, etc... Science is about finding laws, psychology is not developed enough to have laws, hence pseudoscience.
@blahdelablah Dismiss? My point is that they are physical, thus we can analyse them. Plus, we should broaden science, since there are multiple levels of systems. Physic deal in extreme, but there is the middle ground(based in quantum and extending in general). Human interactions forms a system, and we can analyse and classify the element interacting on that level. To fully understand we need physic and chemistry, but stupidity is a scientific term, which classify repeated paterns(mistakes).
You misunderstand my point. Broadening science is fine, but there are certain standards must be met for an academic subject to be classed as a science. The central requirement is to be able to create laws that can be demonstrated to be accurate, i.e. that are testable. We currently understand too little about the brain and it's reactions to chemical processes of the body to build these laws. In time, psychology could become a true science, but it isn't mature enough yet.
@blahdelablah The problem, I think, is the lack of honesty in society. Psychology technically encompass any analysis of mental pattern, thus simply judging someone is psychology. Most people do not truly make the effort to know others or themselves, because the new trend is "acceptance". How can ignoring something lead to accepting it? This is plain delusion(and during therapy?) Psychology is stagnating because on one hand they wait for the irrefutable(scan) while they lack realism in the other.
Even if society was more honest it wouldn't make psychology a true science (please appreciate that I still think psychology is worth studying). Once technology and our understanding of the brain catches up with what psychology attempts to measure, then it has a chance of becoming a true science. Let me put it to you like this, what separates a stargazer from an astrophysicist?
@blahdelablah Bad example, if I may say. The stargazer could analyze the movement of the stars over many years, which lead to astronomy(the basis of astrophysic). So stargazer versus astronomer would be more accurate since we can observe and note the patterns of human behavior. Then, we can postulate the rule that if you beat your kid everyday he will become aggressive(unless he is a sociopath[exception/singularity]). So there are rules, but I would argue that in any field they are relative.
No, it is not a bad example, you deliberately twisted what I said. A stargazer is someone who looks at the stars, astronomers analyse movements of the stars, so if a stargazer analysed movement they wouldn't be a stargazer they'd be an astronomer, capiche? So, let me state the question again, what separates a stargazer from an astrophysicist?
@blahdelablah The middle step... My objection to your example is the gap, since stargazing is the first step which lead to astrophysics but the middle ground is astronomy. This is like asking: what is the difference between a mentally retarded child and a genius?
Psychology is on the same level as astronomy, it has some rules. The difficulty is in the complexity because a mind which can imagine and understand the universe must be superior to it in complexity; psychology is not stable like atoms
The reasoning behind my stargazer/astrophysicist question was fairly straightforward, it was to encourage you to face up to the huge jump in knowledge required for scientific understanding. I deliberately left out astronomy, as it wasn't relevant in showing the two extremes. However, as you seem so keen to hang on to astronomy, let me ask you this; at what point did the study of stars become a science? Using figures in science, was it with Copernicus, Galileo or Newton?
@blahdelablah My point, again, is that psychology is quite advanced already. A century ago it was listing masturbation in it's causes for mental illness, so there was a major leap. Now they have a rather decent knowledge of which region in the brain is responsible for which activity and which chemical imbalance generate an anomaly. They have medicine, not all of it is good, but there are basis(a.k.a. laws). Like in physic 100 years ago(and today) we are still lacking some laws, but we have some.
My point, again, is that it's not advanced enough. Progress is being made, certainly, but psychology hasn't reached the level of physics, biology and chemistry. When we do brain scans we can see increased activity in certain regions of the brain when the test subject is exposed to stimulus, and we make certain assumptions about based on previous assumptions, but piling these assumptions up does not make a science, you need to be able to validate your hypotheses.
@blahdelablah Is your point about proof? Psychology is mostly oral and analytical. There are no absolute physical proof yet, but those are technically not psychological. It is not the job of the psychologist, but of the neurologist to understand the underlying principle of the psychological law. Here Feynman express the "law" as meaning basic principle, but a law is a pattern. If every time you beat up a child, excessively, he becomes aggressive; then there is your law! Violence equal violence.
My point is closer to being about proof, but that's not the whole story. Using your example: "If every time you beat up a child, excessively, he becomes aggressive; then there is your law!" That is NO LAW! Not everyone reacts the same to violence, some might blame themselves for the violence, some might become depressed, some may reject the authority of those that carry out the violence. So you see, your attempt at showing a law is highlighting the pseudo-science approach.
@blahdelablah I did write "excessive"(which limits time to think(due to pain, frequency and potentially brain damage), and I mentioned that human psychology is not stable like an atom. I used the term "pattern" to describe a law, which implies that a law is simply something which systematically happen when certain conditions are met. It just happen that in psychology, there is a greater variety of situations; thus more laws.
@warmongerpro I know nothing about it or how it's advanced, but keep in mind his qualifiers and that this was made in 1981, it seems. That isn't to say I agree with everything he says, of course.
Is it really that wrong to view the social sciences as pseudoscience? Maybe that statement is too broad, but let's look at a specific example. Hopefully you agree with me that scientific knowledge relies on what can be measured. Using one social science as an example, psychology, how do you measure depression? You can categorise types of depression, but other than a name for a condition you aren't measuring it, you can't accurately compare depression between different individuals.
@warmongerpro He was sick, by that point. I find him quite different here, when I compare him to older representations(look at videos filmed earlier).
I don't see that religion and science have to be in conflict, one can believe and still question things further, Euler was a breakthrough thinker scientist who did strongly believe that there's an afterlife and a purpose, it didn't hinder his ability to crack problems that other non religious scientists couldn't solve. then there's a 3rd category of physicist today who believe in a god of harmony, all these are different views.
I think my students will like the idea that we are explorers. We should all be more interested in exploring the world we live in and the bodies we inhabit.
i can't believe that when i learn about incredible people they are all dead, Feynman for instance, Arthur C. Clarke, Carl Sagan. I trully believe Stephen Hawkings is one of the last incredible people with this kind of curiosity, ofcourse, there are many more honorable people (Martin L. King, Gandhi, etc), but with this sort of curiosity, and ways of thinking, only a few, Now a days we should still encourage Neil DeGrasse, Richar dawkins, etc. to become our generation heros.
@nachoseg Why are most great people dead? Well, it has always been that way because of all people that ever lived most people are dead. There are much more people that have lived than that do live. It's a simple mathematical thing. Of course the coincidence that so many great scientists where alive at the same time in the 50s/60s is incredible.
@blenderpanzi and u really believe that if im seeing this kind of videos i can´t figure out that most of the humans that ever existed are dead..? i was talking about great people and scientist, that interested ME, that look very much alive in the videos, but had died already some years ago, ofcourse there are lots of good scientist now alive, but they didnt called my attention yet, ofcourse i also have this kind of feeling towards people who are alive, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, etc
@nachoseg So if you can figure that out, why did you write "i can't believe that when i learn about incredible people they are all dead"? I just tried to help by providing a theory about that fact.
@blenderpanzi incredible for me could be different for others, i just learned about Feynman 3 months ago, and believed he´s incredible, but then read he had died almost 20 years ago, so is irrelevant if there are many cool scientists alive or much dead, is just my thought and my alone, so u cant provde theorys about it nor point out facts..
@blenderpanzi no is fine, just enjoy it. i think you would like this vid, look for "The Poetry of Science" on youtube, is very interesting, and their both alive xd
Good and all but his ramble about social sciences was a bit annoying, we know it's maze physics is relatively simple compared to say the interrelationship between technology, physchology, and economics.
@andrewdavidirving Totally agree, this series was phenomenal and had a lot more important things to consider than his lack of faith at the end. I know what you mean about Foresthynes comment too, even if someones point is fairly clear, if it's not presented correctly it can really diminish its validity. I just jumped in to articulate further to see what developed. = )
@andrewdavidirving The relevant aspect of his post is directing you to consider if you would believe that Jesus was your personal savior and the physical representation of "god". The answer is, no, probably not. The point is that we're largely consequences of our environment, that we grow to conform to most of the social norms presented to us. There is nothing intrinsic to human development that points an individual to Christ, or to Allah, or to Zeus, Odin, Cuthulu, etc.
No one can make a true statement without including something they don't see. It's not wrong to have a religion or believe in science, but it is absolute wrong to certain about these things if it goes against your experience. That's why I think many are skeptical to others view: If a little thing goes against experience, it is easy to believe that all what another says is wrong.
“By being lost in a mysterious universe, without having any purpose. Which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly”
YEP!
Apparently starting with this view of reality produces an existential crisis in many people. Instead of recognizing life is an adventure of discovery, they want to have their answers bottle fed! No doubting, no adventure, no figuring things - dogma and indoctrination.
Two entirely different views of reality - one based on doubt, one based on belief.
@reachthelight pause the video at 5:00 , hit the "PrtSc" (printscreen) button on your keyboard. This will copy a picture of whats on your monitor at that moment, right click in ms paint or what ever drawing program you have and paste it. just crop out the rest of the screen around the picture.
@tmtyler3:28 He says "Maybe someday they will"...This interview is around 30 years old. So, where social science stands today is way ahead of where it stood 3 decades ago!
i love his modesty when explaining his view of teaching...in that he doesnt know how to do it! but by this simple aknowledgement he has uncovered the true art of teaching. its never the same for 2 individuals, which is the only way teaching is taught 2day, one syllabus and style for all schools. he is just just brilliant, i wish he had been my teacher, and i wish society could actually take and learn from those who were greatest among us. it is up 2 us as fathers and mothers to do!!
Yes yes yes. Religion religion. When was the last time scientists grouped together and tried to prevented others from thinking a different way, killed people, or destroyed entire civilizations? From what I have observed from scientists...REAL scientists...is that when approached with an alternate view from their own, which they have gathered with observational data, they sit back, cross their fingers behind their heads, cross their legs, and say: "Okay, explain."
Enrtstund, just a few questions. Where are dinosaurs in the bible? Are they not in there because the bible is written by storytellers who did not know the existence of dinosaurs yet? Why don't people live to be 800 years old any more? Did they get board and decided to live shorter lives? Why does the book of Mathew contradict the book of Paul?
...Why did Columbus kill thousands of Native Americans in the name of the church? Yes, he did do that. Whats the difference between a 5 year old that believes in Santa Claus and a 25 year old that believes in Noahs ark? I have many more questions, but ill leave you with just one. Do you think you would believe in Jesus and the bible if you were born in Iran?
1. There no dinosaurs in the Bible because they actually lived a very long time before the first human beings, so what's the point in mentioning them? The Bible only contains important stuff.
2. The answer to why people don't live to be 800 years anymore is in the Bible and I would encourage you to read it, because then you wouldn't have so many questions.
3. There is no "Book of Paul" so I guess you just made that question up.
4. What morons do in the name of the Church has nothing to do with God. Morons are everywhere.
5. The difference is that the 25 year old is correct and the 5 year old is wrong.
6. I agree that what we believe depends to some extent on where we are raised, but that doesn't change what's true and not. If you were born in Tanzania you probably wouldn't be an atheist.
No, You would believe in something far more ridiculous and nasty called Mohammad and Allah (i.e., Islam), who wants to crush anyone not believing in their petty world view. I don't understand your point, however, a (social) system that produces someone like Feynmann is a pretty good one, no matter how it came about.
@SuperMasonic I belive his point is that religion is often something one accept because it was taught to you at an early age, when one was to young to properly question it., in other words religion is a pre concieved narritive that colours ones worldwiev. When things in the world does not agree with ones religion one often simply choose to believe it anyway which is called faith. Now this can be a wonderfull thing to some, but also very dangerous and I believe it to be the most overated virtue.
@Foresthynes The answer to your question is; probably not. Odds are that I'd be a muslim. But that doesn't mean that Jesus and the Bible are not true. For hundreds of years people didn't belive in atoms, because they couldn't see them that does't mean they didn't exist. The belief or non-belief in subject doesn't say anything about its fundamental truth. That's why there is experimentation. For those of us who rely on science belief is irrelevent.
@markp10311969 ~ well... once "science" started, the concept of atoms was brought into being by Democritus (arguably his mentor as well)... crushed back and stagnated by politics and then religion. Denounced as heretical.
@Foresthynes Your comment is totally irrelevant to this video and to the topic. Your ignorance shows your ignorance as incredibly as this video shows this man's brilliance. In other words, you're an idiot.
I do... Some people are just afraid because of political issues, and how they get intimidated by changing beliefs. There is no doubt that Islam includes all the prophets since, but I wouldn't say we don't believe in Jesus, as much as the last prophet completing the religion.
i really like him for many reasons. but one of the biggest ones is that he isn't afraid to talk like a normal person (about extraordinary ideas). i hate it when people care more about the words you are using than the idea you are talking about. some people just don't care for imagination and would rather be right all the time.
The "laws" of science are inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable "with absolute certainity". It can only be said that experiments support a theory. That can never mean the theory is true, it only means the theory is in agreement with the tests performed. If a person believes a theory is true, it is just that - faith in a belief.
"If a person believes a theory is true, it is just that - faith in a belief. "
This is a category error on your part. The honest admission that "Theory Agrees With Results does not equal Absolute Truth" comes from science. Then when a scientist takes some well-supported condition or "law" as "true" in order to base further investigation upon it, what's going on is that they have every reason to expect consistent results from that law, and no reason to expect otherwise.
"they have every reason to expect consistent results from that law, and no reason to expect otherwise" And yet the "otherwise" happens all the time. For example, quantum mechanics was a harsh slap in the face to classical physics. I believe my statement still holds, "it is just that - faith in a belief. Another example, the unified field theory is only a belief. Interestingly, I read Stephen Hawkings changed his opinion on the unified field theory and no longer "believes" it is possible.
they have every reason to "believe" that law will yield consistent results ... it doesn't mean that it has to or will ... it can never mean that ... the very nature of knowledge is a slipery slope
Also, seems like you're trying to stigmatize the scientific method with this poisoned word "believe". You should get straight the important aspects of how belief relates to scientific knowledge vs how it relates to non-scientific areas. The most important aspect is WHY you believe a certain thing. What reasons do you have to believe? How accessible are these reasons to anyone else? You don't need faith in electricity, you do expect it to power devices. You don't need faith in kinetic energy..
I suppose you're right, I have been trying to stigmatize science because in anwering the questions to the meaning of life, science is useless. I don't need faith in electricity because "I HAVE FAITH" in it to continue to produce the same results, yet that isn't to say that it has to.
"I don't need faith in electricity because "I HAVE FAITH" in it to continue to produce the same results, yet that isn't to say that it has to."
You don't need faith in electricity because you have faith in electricity? This is a demonstration of you unnecessarily trying to force the inappropriate concept of faith into the description of a scientific thought process. Science comes down to Practical Knowledge. Think of why it is impractical to consider something falling upwards.
Scientifically, we have no idea how or why gravity works the way it does. It is only through observation that we make our conclusions. It is possible our observations could change. The observations changing may seem unlikely to the point of disbelief but, that is only because one has faith that the results will continue to be predictable.
When i was bored the discussion of meaning of life i decide to watch this documentary but her again i hit this discussion agin like destiny, anyway, i'm just like you about meaning of life , i don't if there's but i desire, because if there's not we're all bunch of biological machines, now in atomical part of discussion, there many things we still need to learn, but i can say allthe religion stuff is full of lies and they don't offer anny solutin to life.
This is a discrepancy you don't seem to be aware of. You expect human life to have some Definite Purpose, because you are a human life, and there's nothing more important to you. I feel the same way, but I do not expect the same thing. Because you have faith that the most important thing to you actually has an equal or greater objective value from an outside perspective, you decide there must be a "meaning of life". I don't see a reason to decide that.
Remaining agnostic leaves that desire in a painful limbo yet, I find atheism vain and theism nuerotic. What to do, what to do ... ignore the problem and it will go away ... yeah right. It tires me to see people supporting atheism backing their beliefs with science. It has nothing to do with science, it is only a belief. Very much the same way as someone believes in theism. Which is better is up to the believer.
The "otherwise", when encountered, is a positive thing. If it can be understood sufficiently so as to become predictable, it increases the descriptive power of science.
If there is a unified field theory - the theory of everything. That would mean existence is purely mechanical, which would mean pure cause and effect, which would mean no free will. I do not believe that, I do not believe in a theory of eveything (not that it can't be possible). Science fails miserably at answering the questions to the meaning of life.
Even if the unified field theory was realized and every experiment done for a million years was in agreement with the theory. One day an obersvation may disagree with the theory. There is no way to know with certainity that it could not. It would only be taken on faith that the theory was true. So what is the unified field theory ... at best a beautiful dream, at worst a misguided nightmare. Without faith, all knowledge is ultimately flreeting. Atleast, that is what I'm thinking right now.
The truth of a theory is based off obersvation. How would it be possible to come full circle with a theory as to know all future observations with absolute certainity? It seems to me that would be undermining the very heart of science. Science is based off observation.
I love this quote by Einstein, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
However - for mid sized mid momentumed objects, Newton's laws are still perfectly valid.
The "otherwise" doesn't happen all the time, and when it does happen it tends to "refine" a theory..not discard it.
Where science wins is it is an attempt to understand using ways that are provable and repeatable.
Where faith fails (all faith - including blind faith in science), is that is is mute, dumb accpetance..in religions case, on patriarchal iron age myths
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dear treevor921, a true scientist can never be an atheist. Why can't it be that god has ears and eyes and nose and actually created the universe? You may say, eyes were a result of evolution and seeing is performed by an organic brain. I may argue that entire reality is a hologram fed into your consciousness. That neither me, nor Enpratstund, nor Feynman actually exist but are just fed into you to trick u. Be an AGNOSTIC. Atheism is just another religion.
Your "agnosticism" implies that unlikely hypotheses should be treated with the 50% possibility as tried and tested knowledge, and therein lies its flaw. I'm fine with people caling themselves agnostics because they cannot be bothered to look up the fats, or because it is a transitionary position, they simply haven't learned enough yet. But it can not be used as an excuse to avoid learning about things.
mctheaven, and you are ....??? Oh thats right, a nobody, thats what you are. When you have a doctorate in Physics come back and comment, until then shut up you moron.
The TV crew asked to interview him. He didn't call them up for an interview. If he was so fond of 'darkness' then why does he teach? Your comments have all the characteristics of a jealous inferior. Don't be jealous because someone is talented, be happy for them. Be generous in your appreciation. Accept that intelligence should be celebrated, not condemned. If physical beauty is lauded, how much more worthy is the attainment of new knowledge?
I liked that last part. What a good scientist and a good artist has in common is the ability to be at ease pursuing some idea that as yet produces no distinct feeling and has no distinct use. This is a great video collection. This is one for the vault.
Wow! for somebody who paid so little attention to humanities as a child, how is it that Dick is so charismatic? I sat here watching this by myself and just smiled the whole way through... What a lovely insiteful guy. His biographies have been some of the best books I've ever read and seeing him in person telling his stories is incredible. Thank you very much to the poster of this vid ;)
Our transmitters of knowledge - be they professors at Harvard/Cambridge or the lowly teachers at local high schools - should imbibe HUMILITY while transmitting knowledge without assuming airs, supercilious attitudes. Generally their knowledge stops growing too early due to ego disease. Looking at the body language and the plain honesty and sincerity of NOBEL PHYSICIST RICHARD FEYNMAN,we wish a million teachers like him can change our approach to education and hence life on earth more satisfying.
I haven't heard of "feminine science", but I don't like how you've dismissed it so readily. If it is focused on empowering females in the field, it is long overdue. Even Feynman, in these discussions, refers to students as "he" throughout.
Or if "feminine science" is about how gender interacts with epistemic development, then it sounds fascinating.
Regardless, men's hubris in the field of Science should be retired. After all, females in the US now get more undergrad degrees than males!
So, just to re-quote my original post, I said the majority of US citizens who get undergraduate degrees are females. I'm not certain why you started discussing the UK and then qualifying the types of degrees??
The degrees in the UK (and Australia) are very different anyway. Often they can be obtained in as little as three years with less course work than the four year intense degrees for which Canadians and US work hard to obtain.
I made no mention of some "high opinion" of the US educational system, only stating that it is more rigourous in Canada/US then in Britain. (But I do happen to regard it as superior.)
I've discussed the British educational system with a few people from Britain, including a friend who got his D.Phil from Oxford after 6 years. This is jaw dropping to those graduates here in North America, who, as PhD's, take, on average, 11-12 years to get their degree because of the educational requirements!
local bookstore has a section on stuuf like "witchcraft" and ladies private bits being some kind of centre of the universe. thought it was harmless crap until i realised that in some places govornment sponsors schools and courses in that kind of shit. imagine a course openly saying "cocks are the meaning of life and women know nothing"
yeah some assholes may think that but a world where a govornment would actually pay for that to be spread, thats fucked up. subjective science is all crap
I did a search on "feminine science" before I posted my last reply and found nothing that suggested it is "subjective science". Most discussions on it seem to focus on how gender plays into Science and such -it's actually quite interesting.
Are you certain you clearly understand what it is?
I ask because "feminist" has become a bit of pejorative term, and it ought not to be. As a male, I consider myself a feminist. We've had enough male domination on this planet.
To my understanding, one of the basic premises in feminism is that gender is a "social construct". To me it sounds like a belief more than a proven fact. If that is the case, it simply isn't science.
I agree - I have no idea how sex can be a social construct. It is a de-facto state of being.
Terry Pratchett has the "campaign for equal heights" where the dwarfs in Ankh Morpork suggest there should be more of them in senior posts because each one of them is smaller than a human.
I think he is parodying the kind of messed up logic that governments use to appease social groups the world over.
To deny obvious differences is simply to turn a blind eye to the emporers new clothes.
longbendy, I apologize for nacho. He speaks for himself. Not all Americans are as bad as him.
On a happier note, thank you for helping me discover Terry Pratchett. I never heard of him before. He sounds great.
What book of his would you recommend for the first-time reader? Which book talks about the dwarves suggesting more should be promoted to senior position?
Have you read Swift's "Gulliver Travels" as an adult? I loved the 3rd chapter about Laputa. It's so current and so funny.
I don't see the point of "feminine science". Science is science, who cares if great discoveries are made by women. That shouldn't deviate anything away from their discoveries. Most physicists are asexual anyway :P
In the US there are more female undergrads?
Would that be a general statistic or there are actually more female _physics_ undergrads than male physics undergrads?
I think overall, there are very slightly more female university students, about 1:1 ratio in biological sciences, and very skewed ratio in physical sciences (somewhat better in chemistry, worse in Physics... not sure about math).
Feminine science (in the UK at least) is based around the idea that rigorous double blind testing is not the only way to prove something. It takes the idea that if it seems "intuitive" (remembering that non cognitive intuition is in itself psychobabble) - then it is probably right - and we should all stand back and repect it as that.
Two words for beliefs based on that criteria springsto mind
A simple, ultimate law that explains everything...I hope not! Alan Watts was given the question, "Don't you think if there was God, he'd give us an infalliable guide to life." Of course, he was talking about the Bible. Alan Watts said, "NO! I don't think any loving father would do something so horrible like that to their children." Couldn't agree more. The poet Anno Birkin wrote, "Who Said the Race is Over?" (before he died) It's more fun, and that's really the pointless point of life/death.
do not fuck with the truth I will forget mad dangerous are u listening? do not respond do not dare wake up check the mail I will deliver test me peace
this child malesten bastard but brillian t paradox local knowleage uv his dis gust mall est sta matha fuka but brilliant no disrespect fuck this i know his cret x xtra coon not in the bio mf but tragic but brilliant vango vango peace
I am inspired.
KDN888 3 days ago
... forgiven. Not only did I learn from his descriptions of nature - but I also learned from his errors - science and research cannot be distributed as open as it was before - since there are those who will try to misuse it over and over. But as long as only the limited minds exist in science as they do right now (f.e. CERN) - who are rather concerned with honors than with describing nature thoroughly - there's nothing to be afraid of.
partonace 1 week ago
Feynman liked to investigate - but when it came to humans and their intentions - he failed. When continuing his work after WW2 ended, he "simply didn't think" about why he was continuing to do so. Since he didn't have a history which could have pre-informed and therefore altered this his errors are...
partonace 1 week ago
2 total gobshites watched this and didn´t learn a fucking thing.
yatter1 3 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THE NATURAL MAN CANNOT RECEIVE THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS TO HIM
MrNewkingjames 5 months ago
The master living in the guise of a man just looking for the answers.
vinha1006 7 months ago
Simply fantastic! Lucidity of mind!
Lima547 7 months ago in playlist Richard Feynman Lectures
To the individuals below me, a proof is something which deems a system to be consistent and coherent with itself. It means that "given that these are what exist, this can be deduced from it". Being a law simply implies that it has been verified enough, and given accordance with a proof, to say that this is the case thus far. Both having nothing to do with truth, and are more equivalent to references when furthering test data and one's understanding. Like his chess example.
ACANOFSODA 8 months ago
@ACANOFSODA truth! the reason there are no laws in psychology are A) we can not physically prove through interpreting data where exactly any conceptualization of ideas occurs. We know that a large portion of abstract thought and personal feelings to ourselves is produced in the cerebral cortex, but there is still other brain activity occurring at the same time. Until we have figured out the medium or "wave length" on which thought travels and be accurately measured, we have no way of proving
hibob91122 8 months ago
@hibob91122 any of the THEORIES that have been made over the past 80 years or so. B) reality is completely and totally built off the perception of the individual, meaning your interpretation of concepts and words are based of your own experience and understanding of those "symbols" making it so that even if we could develop a "law" to connect all these abstract concepts, they would only hold true for that individual and change based off too many unknown factors.
hibob91122 8 months ago
Love that first bit that bridges the parts. Darwin had the same opinion, that what allowed him to do so much good work was long stretches of uninterrupted time for thought.
kaimialana 9 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
Even if society was more honest it wouldn't make psychology a true science (please appreciate that I still think psychology is worth studying). Once technology and our understanding of the brain catches up with what psychology attempts to measure, then it has a chance of becoming a true science. Let me put it to you like this, what separates a stargazer from an astrophysicist?
blahdelablah 10 months ago
Thanks for putting this up.
stevehayes13 10 months ago
a* and I will refrain from posting at 1:16 now.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
Personalities*
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@blahdelablah We can measure the cause, the reason people get depressed is chemical. Plus, psychology is the study of mental pattern. Personality can be measured and compared by their complexity, which you get from their impact.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
"We can measure the cause, the reason people get depressed is chemical." This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes it pseudoscience, you can't just dismiss a response as chemical, you have to know everything about those reactions, such as why they are produced, what other chemicals in the body they react with, how the brain interprets the chemical reaction, etc... Science is about finding laws, psychology is not developed enough to have laws, hence pseudoscience.
blahdelablah 10 months ago
@blahdelablah Dismiss? My point is that they are physical, thus we can analyse them. Plus, we should broaden science, since there are multiple levels of systems. Physic deal in extreme, but there is the middle ground(based in quantum and extending in general). Human interactions forms a system, and we can analyse and classify the element interacting on that level. To fully understand we need physic and chemistry, but stupidity is a scientific term, which classify repeated paterns(mistakes).
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
You misunderstand my point. Broadening science is fine, but there are certain standards must be met for an academic subject to be classed as a science. The central requirement is to be able to create laws that can be demonstrated to be accurate, i.e. that are testable. We currently understand too little about the brain and it's reactions to chemical processes of the body to build these laws. In time, psychology could become a true science, but it isn't mature enough yet.
blahdelablah 10 months ago
Comment removed
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@blahdelablah The problem, I think, is the lack of honesty in society. Psychology technically encompass any analysis of mental pattern, thus simply judging someone is psychology. Most people do not truly make the effort to know others or themselves, because the new trend is "acceptance". How can ignoring something lead to accepting it? This is plain delusion(and during therapy?) Psychology is stagnating because on one hand they wait for the irrefutable(scan) while they lack realism in the other.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
Even if society was more honest it wouldn't make psychology a true science (please appreciate that I still think psychology is worth studying). Once technology and our understanding of the brain catches up with what psychology attempts to measure, then it has a chance of becoming a true science. Let me put it to you like this, what separates a stargazer from an astrophysicist?
blahdelablah 10 months ago
@blahdelablah Bad example, if I may say. The stargazer could analyze the movement of the stars over many years, which lead to astronomy(the basis of astrophysic). So stargazer versus astronomer would be more accurate since we can observe and note the patterns of human behavior. Then, we can postulate the rule that if you beat your kid everyday he will become aggressive(unless he is a sociopath[exception/singularity]). So there are rules, but I would argue that in any field they are relative.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
No, it is not a bad example, you deliberately twisted what I said. A stargazer is someone who looks at the stars, astronomers analyse movements of the stars, so if a stargazer analysed movement they wouldn't be a stargazer they'd be an astronomer, capiche? So, let me state the question again, what separates a stargazer from an astrophysicist?
blahdelablah 10 months ago
@blahdelablah The middle step... My objection to your example is the gap, since stargazing is the first step which lead to astrophysics but the middle ground is astronomy. This is like asking: what is the difference between a mentally retarded child and a genius?
Psychology is on the same level as astronomy, it has some rules. The difficulty is in the complexity because a mind which can imagine and understand the universe must be superior to it in complexity; psychology is not stable like atoms
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
The reasoning behind my stargazer/astrophysicist question was fairly straightforward, it was to encourage you to face up to the huge jump in knowledge required for scientific understanding. I deliberately left out astronomy, as it wasn't relevant in showing the two extremes. However, as you seem so keen to hang on to astronomy, let me ask you this; at what point did the study of stars become a science? Using figures in science, was it with Copernicus, Galileo or Newton?
blahdelablah 10 months ago
@blahdelablah My point, again, is that psychology is quite advanced already. A century ago it was listing masturbation in it's causes for mental illness, so there was a major leap. Now they have a rather decent knowledge of which region in the brain is responsible for which activity and which chemical imbalance generate an anomaly. They have medicine, not all of it is good, but there are basis(a.k.a. laws). Like in physic 100 years ago(and today) we are still lacking some laws, but we have some.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
My point, again, is that it's not advanced enough. Progress is being made, certainly, but psychology hasn't reached the level of physics, biology and chemistry. When we do brain scans we can see increased activity in certain regions of the brain when the test subject is exposed to stimulus, and we make certain assumptions about based on previous assumptions, but piling these assumptions up does not make a science, you need to be able to validate your hypotheses.
blahdelablah 10 months ago
@blahdelablah Is your point about proof? Psychology is mostly oral and analytical. There are no absolute physical proof yet, but those are technically not psychological. It is not the job of the psychologist, but of the neurologist to understand the underlying principle of the psychological law. Here Feynman express the "law" as meaning basic principle, but a law is a pattern. If every time you beat up a child, excessively, he becomes aggressive; then there is your law! Violence equal violence.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@AbsentiaeAddoAccendo
My point is closer to being about proof, but that's not the whole story. Using your example: "If every time you beat up a child, excessively, he becomes aggressive; then there is your law!" That is NO LAW! Not everyone reacts the same to violence, some might blame themselves for the violence, some might become depressed, some may reject the authority of those that carry out the violence. So you see, your attempt at showing a law is highlighting the pseudo-science approach.
blahdelablah 9 months ago
@blahdelablah I did write "excessive"(which limits time to think(due to pain, frequency and potentially brain damage), and I mentioned that human psychology is not stable like an atom. I used the term "pattern" to describe a law, which implies that a law is simply something which systematically happen when certain conditions are met. It just happen that in psychology, there is a greater variety of situations; thus more laws.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 9 months ago
"I won't know the world very well, but that's what I think". What a beautiful thing for a human being to admit anytime past 1981 I guess.....
Dr. Feynman helped me define what I consider myself to be.... a rationally thinking human being
tylandal 10 months ago
A scientist with an imagination, really something cool.
VarvaraBell 11 months ago
He lost me when he called the social sciences a pseudoscience. I like him but he's dead wrong there.
warmongerpro 11 months ago
@warmongerpro I know nothing about it or how it's advanced, but keep in mind his qualifiers and that this was made in 1981, it seems. That isn't to say I agree with everything he says, of course.
StrikerX228 11 months ago
@warmongerpro
Is it really that wrong to view the social sciences as pseudoscience? Maybe that statement is too broad, but let's look at a specific example. Hopefully you agree with me that scientific knowledge relies on what can be measured. Using one social science as an example, psychology, how do you measure depression? You can categorise types of depression, but other than a name for a condition you aren't measuring it, you can't accurately compare depression between different individuals.
blahdelablah 10 months ago
@blahdelablah Wrote on response, posted it on iPad, not sure it sent you a warning. So, manual warning 0.0 here is to make sure.
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
@warmongerpro He was sick, by that point. I find him quite different here, when I compare him to older representations(look at videos filmed earlier).
AbsentiaeAddoAccendo 10 months ago
starting from 8:24 truly amazing words
chizhr 11 months ago
It's like if dustin hoffman were a really smart, inspiring physics professor!
MasterDebator809 1 year ago
I don't know how to answer this question. " Well, I think you did ;)
DLPBurke 1 year ago
The two "dislikes" prefer to make the world fit their fairy tale answers.
pandaya 1 year ago
@pandaya nah let's have some hope that they just slipped and hit the wrong thing :P
DLPBurke 1 year ago
I don't see that religion and science have to be in conflict, one can believe and still question things further, Euler was a breakthrough thinker scientist who did strongly believe that there's an afterlife and a purpose, it didn't hinder his ability to crack problems that other non religious scientists couldn't solve. then there's a 3rd category of physicist today who believe in a god of harmony, all these are different views.
VERGIS92 1 year ago
I think my students will like the idea that we are explorers. We should all be more interested in exploring the world we live in and the bodies we inhabit.
gastvq1 1 year ago
he's my idol
Fallovan 1 year ago
This really wasn't what I was expecting, but I greatly enjoyed it. Thanks for posting it! It's definitely a video worth sharing.
lupischuckle 1 year ago
i can't believe that when i learn about incredible people they are all dead, Feynman for instance, Arthur C. Clarke, Carl Sagan. I trully believe Stephen Hawkings is one of the last incredible people with this kind of curiosity, ofcourse, there are many more honorable people (Martin L. King, Gandhi, etc), but with this sort of curiosity, and ways of thinking, only a few, Now a days we should still encourage Neil DeGrasse, Richar dawkins, etc. to become our generation heros.
nachoseg 1 year ago
@nachoseg Why are most great people dead? Well, it has always been that way because of all people that ever lived most people are dead. There are much more people that have lived than that do live. It's a simple mathematical thing. Of course the coincidence that so many great scientists where alive at the same time in the 50s/60s is incredible.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
@blenderpanzi wtf are u talking about
nachoseg 1 year ago
@nachoseg Because you wondered why when you learn about incredible people they are all dead.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
@blenderpanzi and u really believe that if im seeing this kind of videos i can´t figure out that most of the humans that ever existed are dead..? i was talking about great people and scientist, that interested ME, that look very much alive in the videos, but had died already some years ago, ofcourse there are lots of good scientist now alive, but they didnt called my attention yet, ofcourse i also have this kind of feeling towards people who are alive, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, etc
nachoseg 1 year ago
@nachoseg So if you can figure that out, why did you write "i can't believe that when i learn about incredible people they are all dead"? I just tried to help by providing a theory about that fact.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
@blenderpanzi incredible for me could be different for others, i just learned about Feynman 3 months ago, and believed he´s incredible, but then read he had died almost 20 years ago, so is irrelevant if there are many cool scientists alive or much dead, is just my thought and my alone, so u cant provde theorys about it nor point out facts..
nachoseg 1 year ago
@nachoseg Ok. Just wanted to do small talk. Whatever.
blenderpanzi 1 year ago
@blenderpanzi no is fine, just enjoy it. i think you would like this vid, look for "The Poetry of Science" on youtube, is very interesting, and their both alive xd
nachoseg 1 year ago
Good and all but his ramble about social sciences was a bit annoying, we know it's maze physics is relatively simple compared to say the interrelationship between technology, physchology, and economics.
MikDonsen 1 year ago
WELL . . . ? I GUESS WE SHALL WAIT , AND SEE
ON JUDGEMENT DAY !
MrDAVIDEO84 1 year ago
@andrewdavidirving Totally agree, this series was phenomenal and had a lot more important things to consider than his lack of faith at the end. I know what you mean about Foresthynes comment too, even if someones point is fairly clear, if it's not presented correctly it can really diminish its validity. I just jumped in to articulate further to see what developed. = )
fisticufffs 1 year ago
@andrewdavidirving The relevant aspect of his post is directing you to consider if you would believe that Jesus was your personal savior and the physical representation of "god". The answer is, no, probably not. The point is that we're largely consequences of our environment, that we grow to conform to most of the social norms presented to us. There is nothing intrinsic to human development that points an individual to Christ, or to Allah, or to Zeus, Odin, Cuthulu, etc.
fisticufffs 1 year ago 2
He kinda looks like rube from dead like me
ratm3413 1 year ago
No one can make a true statement without including something they don't see. It's not wrong to have a religion or believe in science, but it is absolute wrong to certain about these things if it goes against your experience. That's why I think many are skeptical to others view: If a little thing goes against experience, it is easy to believe that all what another says is wrong.
bvssvni 1 year ago
“By being lost in a mysterious universe, without having any purpose. Which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly”
YEP!
Apparently starting with this view of reality produces an existential crisis in many people. Instead of recognizing life is an adventure of discovery, they want to have their answers bottle fed! No doubting, no adventure, no figuring things - dogma and indoctrination.
Two entirely different views of reality - one based on doubt, one based on belief.
Knossos22 1 year ago 3
someone know how to get the original picture at 5:00 ?
hands are not clear and a bit weird ...
reachthelight 1 year ago
@reachthelight pause the video at 5:00 , hit the "PrtSc" (printscreen) button on your keyboard. This will copy a picture of whats on your monitor at that moment, right click in ms paint or what ever drawing program you have and paste it. just crop out the rest of the screen around the picture.
ShakeNBake101 1 year ago
The Knight of Science!
kotoweb 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3:08 - social science - not scientific?!? What physics snobbery!
tmtyler 1 year ago
@tmtyler
If it were.. I should hope that after all those thousands of years of study.. we would have seen Hitler coming.
The human social element is probably much more chaotic then sub atomic particles.
PaleHearse 1 year ago
@tmtyler 3:28 He says "Maybe someday they will"...This interview is around 30 years old. So, where social science stands today is way ahead of where it stood 3 decades ago!
sarangnorway 1 year ago
@tmtyler
He's right you know!
Nowadays people call EVERYTHING a science (when clearly its NOT)
Economic sciences??? Political Sciences???
NO such thing! They're HUMANITIES!
People like to call them science because of the prestige the name brings
luarionte 1 year ago 3
Effortlessly brilliant, this guy.
miketwo345 1 year ago 12
i love his modesty when explaining his view of teaching...in that he doesnt know how to do it! but by this simple aknowledgement he has uncovered the true art of teaching. its never the same for 2 individuals, which is the only way teaching is taught 2day, one syllabus and style for all schools. he is just just brilliant, i wish he had been my teacher, and i wish society could actually take and learn from those who were greatest among us. it is up 2 us as fathers and mothers to do!!
jackofeet1000 1 year ago 36
that was awesome
rajithaify 1 year ago 3
Yes yes yes. Religion religion. When was the last time scientists grouped together and tried to prevented others from thinking a different way, killed people, or destroyed entire civilizations? From what I have observed from scientists...REAL scientists...is that when approached with an alternate view from their own, which they have gathered with observational data, they sit back, cross their fingers behind their heads, cross their legs, and say: "Okay, explain."
dachoatah 1 year ago 4
Epic series. He's a very inspirational man. Thanks for uploading this.
seriousbees 1 year ago 3
what an amazing human being
elgordo420 1 year ago 120
gotta love Feynman!
Respect
Duffan1 1 year ago 2
feynmans children must be awesome, i would love to meet them
anjundoobies89 1 year ago
Enrtstund, just a few questions. Where are dinosaurs in the bible? Are they not in there because the bible is written by storytellers who did not know the existence of dinosaurs yet? Why don't people live to be 800 years old any more? Did they get board and decided to live shorter lives? Why does the book of Mathew contradict the book of Paul?
Foresthynes 2 years ago 4
...Why did Columbus kill thousands of Native Americans in the name of the church? Yes, he did do that. Whats the difference between a 5 year old that believes in Santa Claus and a 25 year old that believes in Noahs ark? I have many more questions, but ill leave you with just one. Do you think you would believe in Jesus and the bible if you were born in Iran?
Foresthynes 2 years ago 41
1. There no dinosaurs in the Bible because they actually lived a very long time before the first human beings, so what's the point in mentioning them? The Bible only contains important stuff.
2. The answer to why people don't live to be 800 years anymore is in the Bible and I would encourage you to read it, because then you wouldn't have so many questions.
3. There is no "Book of Paul" so I guess you just made that question up.
Enpratstund 1 year ago
4. What morons do in the name of the Church has nothing to do with God. Morons are everywhere.
5. The difference is that the 25 year old is correct and the 5 year old is wrong.
6. I agree that what we believe depends to some extent on where we are raised, but that doesn't change what's true and not. If you were born in Tanzania you probably wouldn't be an atheist.
Enpratstund 1 year ago
@Foresthynes
No, You would believe in something far more ridiculous and nasty called Mohammad and Allah (i.e., Islam), who wants to crush anyone not believing in their petty world view. I don't understand your point, however, a (social) system that produces someone like Feynmann is a pretty good one, no matter how it came about.
SuperMasonic 1 year ago
@SuperMasonic I belive his point is that religion is often something one accept because it was taught to you at an early age, when one was to young to properly question it., in other words religion is a pre concieved narritive that colours ones worldwiev. When things in the world does not agree with ones religion one often simply choose to believe it anyway which is called faith. Now this can be a wonderfull thing to some, but also very dangerous and I believe it to be the most overated virtue.
Moardieb 1 year ago 3
@Foresthynes The answer to your question is; probably not. Odds are that I'd be a muslim. But that doesn't mean that Jesus and the Bible are not true. For hundreds of years people didn't belive in atoms, because they couldn't see them that does't mean they didn't exist. The belief or non-belief in subject doesn't say anything about its fundamental truth. That's why there is experimentation. For those of us who rely on science belief is irrelevent.
markp10311969 1 year ago
@markp10311969 ~ well... once "science" started, the concept of atoms was brought into being by Democritus (arguably his mentor as well)... crushed back and stagnated by politics and then religion. Denounced as heretical.
LaserParody 1 year ago
@Foresthynes Your comment is totally irrelevant to this video and to the topic. Your ignorance shows your ignorance as incredibly as this video shows this man's brilliance. In other words, you're an idiot.
wojtek0000 1 year ago
@Foresthynes muslims believe in jesus if that answers one of your questions.
freejazzisbetter 1 year ago
@Foresthynes
I do... Some people are just afraid because of political issues, and how they get intimidated by changing beliefs. There is no doubt that Islam includes all the prophets since, but I wouldn't say we don't believe in Jesus, as much as the last prophet completing the religion.
Tekhsheen 1 year ago
@Foresthynes
human nurture...good going my man
rev0107 1 year ago
Comment removed
Foresthynes 2 years ago
Cool!
Feynman has the same philosophy as mine: we have no purpouse in the Universe!
luarionte 2 years ago
"Its better to live with doubt and uncertainty about all things than to believe in something that might be wrong"!
These beautiful words became my motto!
luarionte 2 years ago
very interesting!
CulturePeaceForever 2 years ago
i really like him for many reasons. but one of the biggest ones is that he isn't afraid to talk like a normal person (about extraordinary ideas). i hate it when people care more about the words you are using than the idea you are talking about. some people just don't care for imagination and would rather be right all the time.
nacho862 2 years ago
wow the end really got to me...
carb182 2 years ago 2
such a wonderful man
GLYPHKING 2 years ago
The closing line: "It doesn't frighten me...", with that gentle and ironic smile... oh, how extraordinary!!!!!!!
entangler68 2 years ago 4
lol fucking youtube conversations
chessplayer21 2 years ago
Start out understanding science by saying everything is *possibly* wrong;
have you read David Hume's argument that experience cannot lead to a knowledge of necessary relations, such as cause and effect?
YTjason002 2 years ago
The "laws" of science are inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable "with absolute certainity". It can only be said that experiments support a theory. That can never mean the theory is true, it only means the theory is in agreement with the tests performed. If a person believes a theory is true, it is just that - faith in a belief.
YTjason002 2 years ago
"If a person believes a theory is true, it is just that - faith in a belief. "
This is a category error on your part. The honest admission that "Theory Agrees With Results does not equal Absolute Truth" comes from science. Then when a scientist takes some well-supported condition or "law" as "true" in order to base further investigation upon it, what's going on is that they have every reason to expect consistent results from that law, and no reason to expect otherwise.
patienceking 2 years ago 2
"they have every reason to expect consistent results from that law, and no reason to expect otherwise" And yet the "otherwise" happens all the time. For example, quantum mechanics was a harsh slap in the face to classical physics. I believe my statement still holds, "it is just that - faith in a belief. Another example, the unified field theory is only a belief. Interestingly, I read Stephen Hawkings changed his opinion on the unified field theory and no longer "believes" it is possible.
YTjason002 2 years ago
they have every reason to "believe" that law will yield consistent results ... it doesn't mean that it has to or will ... it can never mean that ... the very nature of knowledge is a slipery slope
YTjason002 2 years ago
Also, seems like you're trying to stigmatize the scientific method with this poisoned word "believe". You should get straight the important aspects of how belief relates to scientific knowledge vs how it relates to non-scientific areas. The most important aspect is WHY you believe a certain thing. What reasons do you have to believe? How accessible are these reasons to anyone else? You don't need faith in electricity, you do expect it to power devices. You don't need faith in kinetic energy..
patienceking 2 years ago
I suppose you're right, I have been trying to stigmatize science because in anwering the questions to the meaning of life, science is useless. I don't need faith in electricity because "I HAVE FAITH" in it to continue to produce the same results, yet that isn't to say that it has to.
YTjason002 2 years ago
"I don't need faith in electricity because "I HAVE FAITH" in it to continue to produce the same results, yet that isn't to say that it has to."
You don't need faith in electricity because you have faith in electricity? This is a demonstration of you unnecessarily trying to force the inappropriate concept of faith into the description of a scientific thought process. Science comes down to Practical Knowledge. Think of why it is impractical to consider something falling upwards.
patienceking 2 years ago 2
Scientifically, we have no idea how or why gravity works the way it does. It is only through observation that we make our conclusions. It is possible our observations could change. The observations changing may seem unlikely to the point of disbelief but, that is only because one has faith that the results will continue to be predictable.
YTjason002 2 years ago
When i was bored the discussion of meaning of life i decide to watch this documentary but her again i hit this discussion agin like destiny, anyway, i'm just like you about meaning of life , i don't if there's but i desire, because if there's not we're all bunch of biological machines, now in atomical part of discussion, there many things we still need to learn, but i can say allthe religion stuff is full of lies and they don't offer anny solutin to life.
Fatihtheking 2 years ago
".yet that isn't to say that it has to."
This is a discrepancy you don't seem to be aware of. You expect human life to have some Definite Purpose, because you are a human life, and there's nothing more important to you. I feel the same way, but I do not expect the same thing. Because you have faith that the most important thing to you actually has an equal or greater objective value from an outside perspective, you decide there must be a "meaning of life". I don't see a reason to decide that.
patienceking 2 years ago 2
I don't decide there is a "meaning of life". I desire it.
YTjason002 2 years ago
Remaining agnostic leaves that desire in a painful limbo yet, I find atheism vain and theism nuerotic. What to do, what to do ... ignore the problem and it will go away ... yeah right. It tires me to see people supporting atheism backing their beliefs with science. It has nothing to do with science, it is only a belief. Very much the same way as someone believes in theism. Which is better is up to the believer.
YTjason002 2 years ago
btw patienceking, thanks for the conversation, I've enjoyed it.
YTjason002 2 years ago
The "otherwise", when encountered, is a positive thing. If it can be understood sufficiently so as to become predictable, it increases the descriptive power of science.
patienceking 2 years ago
If there is a unified field theory - the theory of everything. That would mean existence is purely mechanical, which would mean pure cause and effect, which would mean no free will. I do not believe that, I do not believe in a theory of eveything (not that it can't be possible). Science fails miserably at answering the questions to the meaning of life.
YTjason002 2 years ago
Even if the unified field theory was realized and every experiment done for a million years was in agreement with the theory. One day an obersvation may disagree with the theory. There is no way to know with certainity that it could not. It would only be taken on faith that the theory was true. So what is the unified field theory ... at best a beautiful dream, at worst a misguided nightmare. Without faith, all knowledge is ultimately flreeting. Atleast, that is what I'm thinking right now.
YTjason002 2 years ago
typo ... flreeting -> fleeting.
The truth of a theory is based off obersvation. How would it be possible to come full circle with a theory as to know all future observations with absolute certainity? It seems to me that would be undermining the very heart of science. Science is based off observation.
I love this quote by Einstein, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
YTjason002 2 years ago
Believing in the scientific method has nothing to do with faith.
NoSz4 2 years ago 3
We don't. Maybe there is such a theory, maybe not. That is what makes it really interesting.
elimik31 2 years ago
However - for mid sized mid momentumed objects, Newton's laws are still perfectly valid.
The "otherwise" doesn't happen all the time, and when it does happen it tends to "refine" a theory..not discard it.
Where science wins is it is an attempt to understand using ways that are provable and repeatable.
Where faith fails (all faith - including blind faith in science), is that is is mute, dumb accpetance..in religions case, on patriarchal iron age myths
longbendy81 2 years ago
Comment removed
YTjason002 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear treevor921, a true scientist can never be an atheist. Why can't it be that god has ears and eyes and nose and actually created the universe? You may say, eyes were a result of evolution and seeing is performed by an organic brain. I may argue that entire reality is a hologram fed into your consciousness. That neither me, nor Enpratstund, nor Feynman actually exist but are just fed into you to trick u. Be an AGNOSTIC. Atheism is just another religion.
presidentOrangutan 2 years ago
are you serious?
No more Matrix for this guy...
slovoflud 2 years ago 2
Your "agnosticism" implies that unlikely hypotheses should be treated with the 50% possibility as tried and tested knowledge, and therein lies its flaw. I'm fine with people caling themselves agnostics because they cannot be bothered to look up the fats, or because it is a transitionary position, they simply haven't learned enough yet. But it can not be used as an excuse to avoid learning about things.
whade62000 2 years ago 2
really good
iamsoosmart 2 years ago
great uploads
archaedemos 2 years ago
:) You can't even speak or write English you stupid Idiot. What a retard :)
Hania454 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A man who loved ignorance.
He loves himself the most, especially his being smart.
In order to go on and show off himself,
the truth must be kept away. Because he is the king as long as the truth does not reveal itself to us.
He loves the ACT of enlightening, for which always some places must remain in darkness, waiting a genius to light up.
He hates the truth. He loves ignorance.
That's what he is.
McTheaven 2 years ago
mctheaven, and you are ....??? Oh thats right, a nobody, thats what you are. When you have a doctorate in Physics come back and comment, until then shut up you moron.
Hania454 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Look how pitty you are.
No content to comment.
McTheaven 2 years ago
The TV crew asked to interview him. He didn't call them up for an interview. If he was so fond of 'darkness' then why does he teach? Your comments have all the characteristics of a jealous inferior. Don't be jealous because someone is talented, be happy for them. Be generous in your appreciation. Accept that intelligence should be celebrated, not condemned. If physical beauty is lauded, how much more worthy is the attainment of new knowledge?
Now don't be bitter, McTheaven, it isn't healthy.
beogradwill 2 years ago 3
Oh dear, you are a sad deluded littel man aren't you McTheaven.
And what "truth" are you talking about ? One that you know and we don't ?
Who is being the "clever man" now ?
But then beating someone like you in an arguement is like winning an ass kicking contest against a one legged man.
Funny, but meaningless ( a bit like you then lol)
longbendy81 2 years ago
The ending is such an honest look at humanity.
JuxTaPose117 2 years ago 2
Inspiring. Thanks for posting this!
nycfemale2008 3 years ago 3
Brilliant!
Thanks for the whole video.
Show no Fear but Love when finding things out. Peace!
psbzu 3 years ago 3
I liked that last part. What a good scientist and a good artist has in common is the ability to be at ease pursuing some idea that as yet produces no distinct feeling and has no distinct use. This is a great video collection. This is one for the vault.
trombone7 3 years ago 3
Wow! for somebody who paid so little attention to humanities as a child, how is it that Dick is so charismatic? I sat here watching this by myself and just smiled the whole way through... What a lovely insiteful guy. His biographies have been some of the best books I've ever read and seeing him in person telling his stories is incredible. Thank you very much to the poster of this vid ;)
2potatocakes 3 years ago 5
You got to see him in person?
Polkabear69fun 3 years ago
Into the dogs nose,........gotta love it!
FarSideofTown 3 years ago
Our transmitters of knowledge - be they professors at Harvard/Cambridge or the lowly teachers at local high schools - should imbibe HUMILITY while transmitting knowledge without assuming airs, supercilious attitudes. Generally their knowledge stops growing too early due to ego disease. Looking at the body language and the plain honesty and sincerity of NOBEL PHYSICIST RICHARD FEYNMAN,we wish a million teachers like him can change our approach to education and hence life on earth more satisfying.
bmkaruppan 3 years ago
Socrates had the answer about teaching but
he told that one he knew, is that he knew "nothing".
Scientist like RF have the answer about finding more about "nothing".
konenas 3 years ago
Bit late I know but thank you so much for uploading this. I have only ever seen parts before and it was wonderful to see in it's entirety.
Pyrrhic24 3 years ago 2
Profound
canvas42 3 years ago 3
Great views on "pseudo" science and bloody "subjective" science (and the new "feminine science" - whatever the hell that is)
Iscritty 3 years ago 2
I haven't heard of "feminine science", but I don't like how you've dismissed it so readily. If it is focused on empowering females in the field, it is long overdue. Even Feynman, in these discussions, refers to students as "he" throughout.
Or if "feminine science" is about how gender interacts with epistemic development, then it sounds fascinating.
Regardless, men's hubris in the field of Science should be retired. After all, females in the US now get more undergrad degrees than males!
dweeper1020 3 years ago
You've not heard of feminine science, but you condemn my stance on it?
Marvellous. You make my point for me more eloquently than I could in 10,000 words.
Apparently, feminine science is to do with a belief in the "divine feminine" and suchlike.
It is a belief in "subjective science"
Itself about as oxymoronical a statement as it is possible to make.
As many men believe in it as women, so I am not sure as to why it is so named.
I stand by my original thoughts that it is nonsense
Iscritty 3 years ago 4
Also it is neither to do with the empopwerment of women nor epistemology.
As to your last point, 54% of undergraduates in the UK are women, though slightly more men achieve 1st class degrees.
Sadly women are still under-represented in science subjects in the UK, making up less than 20%.
Preferring Sociology, Psychology and Art History.
The UK has a science deficit in industry - and an large number of unemployed with the above degrees.
Not a chauvenist point of view, just the facts.
Iscritty 3 years ago 3
So, just to re-quote my original post, I said the majority of US citizens who get undergraduate degrees are females. I'm not certain why you started discussing the UK and then qualifying the types of degrees??
The degrees in the UK (and Australia) are very different anyway. Often they can be obtained in as little as three years with less course work than the four year intense degrees for which Canadians and US work hard to obtain.
dweeper1020 3 years ago
I live in GB - I am using terms of reference I am familiar with.
It is I who don't understand why YOU started discussing the US. (your post was in response to mine after all)
Yes I am quite sure of my terms as far as feminine science is concerned.
You mention "feminist" - perhaps this is a different field. I refer to "feminine" - in its adjectorial sense.
As a woman (with a PhD obtained in GB) I agree with your point about men, but not your high opinion of the US education system
treevor921 3 years ago
I made no mention of some "high opinion" of the US educational system, only stating that it is more rigourous in Canada/US then in Britain. (But I do happen to regard it as superior.)
I've discussed the British educational system with a few people from Britain, including a friend who got his D.Phil from Oxford after 6 years. This is jaw dropping to those graduates here in North America, who, as PhD's, take, on average, 11-12 years to get their degree because of the educational requirements!
dweeper1020 3 years ago
local bookstore has a section on stuuf like "witchcraft" and ladies private bits being some kind of centre of the universe. thought it was harmless crap until i realised that in some places govornment sponsors schools and courses in that kind of shit. imagine a course openly saying "cocks are the meaning of life and women know nothing"
yeah some assholes may think that but a world where a govornment would actually pay for that to be spread, thats fucked up. subjective science is all crap
treevor921 3 years ago 2
I did a search on "feminine science" before I posted my last reply and found nothing that suggested it is "subjective science". Most discussions on it seem to focus on how gender plays into Science and such -it's actually quite interesting.
Are you certain you clearly understand what it is?
I ask because "feminist" has become a bit of pejorative term, and it ought not to be. As a male, I consider myself a feminist. We've had enough male domination on this planet.
dweeper1020 3 years ago
To my understanding, one of the basic premises in feminism is that gender is a "social construct". To me it sounds like a belief more than a proven fact. If that is the case, it simply isn't science.
Herke83 3 years ago
I agree - I have no idea how sex can be a social construct. It is a de-facto state of being.
Terry Pratchett has the "campaign for equal heights" where the dwarfs in Ankh Morpork suggest there should be more of them in senior posts because each one of them is smaller than a human.
I think he is parodying the kind of messed up logic that governments use to appease social groups the world over.
To deny obvious differences is simply to turn a blind eye to the emporers new clothes.
longbendy81 2 years ago
longbendy, I apologize for nacho. He speaks for himself. Not all Americans are as bad as him.
On a happier note, thank you for helping me discover Terry Pratchett. I never heard of him before. He sounds great.
What book of his would you recommend for the first-time reader? Which book talks about the dwarves suggesting more should be promoted to senior position?
Have you read Swift's "Gulliver Travels" as an adult? I loved the 3rd chapter about Laputa. It's so current and so funny.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
I don't see the point of "feminine science". Science is science, who cares if great discoveries are made by women. That shouldn't deviate anything away from their discoveries. Most physicists are asexual anyway :P
In the US there are more female undergrads?
Would that be a general statistic or there are actually more female _physics_ undergrads than male physics undergrads?
aadoza 3 years ago
I think overall, there are very slightly more female university students, about 1:1 ratio in biological sciences, and very skewed ratio in physical sciences (somewhat better in chemistry, worse in Physics... not sure about math).
codeinecandy 2 years ago
Feminine science (in the UK at least) is based around the idea that rigorous double blind testing is not the only way to prove something. It takes the idea that if it seems "intuitive" (remembering that non cognitive intuition is in itself psychobabble) - then it is probably right - and we should all stand back and repect it as that.
Two words for beliefs based on that criteria springsto mind
"Probably Wrong" seems to fit..
but "Subjective Gibberish" comes a close second.
longbendy81 2 years ago
thanks for uploading this!
neantibi 3 years ago 5
This guy is my role model for life.
grimwallace 3 years ago 5
A simple, ultimate law that explains everything...I hope not! Alan Watts was given the question, "Don't you think if there was God, he'd give us an infalliable guide to life." Of course, he was talking about the Bible. Alan Watts said, "NO! I don't think any loving father would do something so horrible like that to their children." Couldn't agree more. The poet Anno Birkin wrote, "Who Said the Race is Over?" (before he died) It's more fun, and that's really the pointless point of life/death.
Ramanujan88 3 years ago
The beauty of the fractal is that once a supposed ultimate law is revealed, it will spawn a multitude of new ultimate questions...
abbesieyes 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
just
kidding
the guy is
brilliant
Lol
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sent out a warrant
get ready
actualize if i feel
preasure
LOL
get ready
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
10,000 will follow me
the elite will not
abuse
and use
and abuse like refuse
I am a
man
a hu
man
get ready?
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pasadena
I
know
His
hist
but dont
fuc
with
me
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sexual
e
sic
I
know
but
brilliantly
so
complex
peace
VENGEVENGE 3 years ago