Replies

Dear Brother A --

Who could say anything against science?

Well, what can I say? I love science! (Have a lot of catching up to do, though.)

But I can see how one might worry about statements such as the following:

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.” [Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter]

Me, I don’t understand this mindset, this satisfaction with pure abstraction. I agree with Grandpierre: “I cannot accept such a view of science. I think that everyone working on a field of science should develop an ability to understand the basic ideas. Science should be about understanding and nor about obscure mathematical manipulations.”

It seems to me that science can only have a “truth problem” if it settles for fuzzy abstractions that really don’t mean anything. At bottom, it seems to me that science must be about revealing the truth of existence and the universe, or it’s really a pointless exercise. It must reveal what actually is, not what some of its practitioners might like the “is” to be….

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”

If you ever saw Feinman lecture, you would recognise hyperbole. You would recognise humorous intent. Gifted speakers use tactics that don't translate easily to the printed page.

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”

You might consider RF had his tongue lodged firmly in his cheek when he said that (it probably sounded really odd). If you haven't read his various biographical writings, you should be aware he derived considerable amusement from trying to shock people. Thus his playing safe-cracking games with repositories of top-secret documents; his visits to strip clubs and his 'dating advice', etc.

I might also add that in the history of science, nothing has ever achieved QM's rich set of practical offspring. the average person cannot get through ten minutes without using a device that owes its existence to QM -- including EVERY electronic device and every product that embeds electronics -- wristwatch, telephone, household appliance and automobile.

“What I am going to tell you about is what we teach… you’re not going to be able to understand it. You see, my physics students don’t understand it either. That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.” [Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter]

Every time someone says "I don't know," another angel is born.

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

I understand that is the logical conclusion of the ongoing Aristotle v Plato debate with Hawking and Penrose. I'm paraphrasing here, but I can find the source if anyone is interested: Basically, Hawking (Aristotle worldview) is content when the test results match the prediction, 'nuff said. Penrose (Plato worldview) on the other hand, says "not so fast" - it has to also make sense.