The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist
by Richard Feynman
On This Page
Description
Many appreciate Richard P. Feynman's contributions to twentieth-century physics, but few realize how engaged he was with the world around him, how deeply and thoughtfully he considered the religious, political, and social issues of his day. Now, a wonderful book-based on a previously unpublished, three-part public lecture he gave at the University of Washington in 1963-shows us this other side of Feynman, as he expounds on the inherent conflict between science and religion, people's distrust show more of politicians, and our universal fascination with flying saucers, faith healing, and mental telepathy. Here we see Feynman in top form: nearly bursting into a Navajo war chant, then pressing for an overhaul of the English language (if you want to know why Johnny can't read, just look at the spelling of "friend"); and, finally, ruminating on the death of his first wife from tuberculosis. This is quintessential Feynman-reflective, amusing, and ever enlightening. show lessTags
Recommendations
Member Recommendations
themulhern Both are thoughtful books by smart people. They intersect in their impatience with the pretensions of the social sciences.
Member Reviews
I like the way Feynman thought about things and explained his thoughts. In these three lectures he rambles a bit as always and, as always, addresses certain themes that he would keep on addressing. I think there are three kinds of Feynman writings: the recounted anecdotes about himself; his more serious essays, talks, and interviews; and his serious books about science. As I have gotten older I've tended to like the anecdotes less, and the rest more. Of course, there is some overlap in this one.
Feynman is often characterized as irreverent and I think he was; what he wasn't was automatically disrespectful of or insulting to things and people. Lawrence Krause seems to think he has inherited the Feynman mantle and wishes to appear to be show more similarly irreverent, but he is mostly smug, dismissive, and bigoted, instead. Irreverence is just not what it used to be, I guess. show less
Feynman is often characterized as irreverent and I think he was; what he wasn't was automatically disrespectful of or insulting to things and people. Lawrence Krause seems to think he has inherited the Feynman mantle and wishes to appear to be show more similarly irreverent, but he is mostly smug, dismissive, and bigoted, instead. Irreverence is just not what it used to be, I guess. show less
This is a first for me: a multi-part review drawn from a single book. Richard Feynman’s The Meaning of It All isn’t just worthy of that treatment—it demands it. Not because it’s long (it isn’t), or complex (at least not in form), but because it offers something far rarer: clarity, candor, and intellectual integrity in an age that often feels bereft of all three.
Feynman has always been my second-favorite scientist—just behind Carl Sagan. I grew up with Sagan in the Cosmos era, the voice in the television ether whispering about star stuff and cosmic humility. But it was Feynman who sharpened my mind in college—whose lectures, essays, and paradoxes taught me how to think like an engineer, reason like a physicist, and doubt show more like a scientist.
This review series became a way for me to map Feynman’s mindset against my own—methodical, skeptical, and anchored in systems thinking.
The Meaning of It All is not a tidy book. It’s three unscripted lectures, given in 1963, with all the wandering charm and restless clarity that defined Feynman. Beneath their informal tone lies a coherent worldview—one that reaches beyond science into politics, religion, education, and ethics. His concern isn’t what we know, but how we know—and whether society can still tell the difference between truth and performance, between knowledge and noise. What surprised me, as I worked through this material slowly and in full, was how contemporary it felt. Feynman’s warnings about pseudoscience, political certainty, public confusion, and institutional dishonesty could have been written last week.
These reviews are not simple summaries. They’re teaching tools—essays designed to draw out the core of Feynman’s arguments and show why they matter now. I want readers not only to understand what he said, but to see the architecture behind it, the worldview he inhabited, and the cultural context that shaped it. Feynman was speaking in the 1960s, but he could have been writing for tomorrow.
[Unfortunately, I can't post multiple reviews in LibraryThing, and I rapidly ran out of space in the review field. If you are interested in reading the entire four-part series, drop me a note. Otherwise, enjoy my conclusion below.]
Conclusion — Revisiting Feynman in an Unscientific Age
The Experience of Reviewing Feynman
This project began as an experiment—a close dissection of a short, curious book of lectures. But it became something more: a deliberate study, a long-distance conversation across six decades. An opportunity to hear—not just what Feynman thought—but how he thought. And to ask whether such thinking still has a place in public life.
I’ve always respected Feynman, not merely as a scientist, but as a citizen of the intellect. Reading The Meaning of It All in long form—closely, structurally, with space to reflect—was like watching a great engineer dismantle and rebuild the scaffolding of reason, in real time. His voice is unscripted, fallible, often wandering—but it never loses its integrity.
And what strikes me most, having now completed this review, is how little has changed. The same errors of thought, the same conflation of certainty with truth, the same institutional distortions of reason—all remain. We have better tools now, and worse habits. More data, and less doubt. We live in the future he imagined, but not the one he hoped for.
Modern Context: Why Feynman Still Matters
Feynman delivered these lectures in 1963, during a period of both scientific triumph and political anxiety. The Cold War loomed. The moon was within reach. Public faith in progress was high—but poorly understood. The idea that science could save us was popular. The understanding of what science actually is was rare.
Today, the surface has changed. But the structure? Not so much.
We are once again in an era of epistemic confusion. Scientific literacy is low, but belief in “science” is loud. Technology surrounds us, yet few can explain it. The culture of expertise is embattled—mistrusted by many, weaponized by others. Conspiracy and pseudoscience flourish not in the absence of information, but in its excess. Certainty is sold as leadership. Doubt is seen as weakness.
Feynman’s lectures are not relics. They are maps. They show how a free society loses its grip on truth—not through censorship, but through confusion. Not by suppressing knowledge, but by degrading the standards by which knowledge is earned.
Key Takeaways: What Feynman Offers Today
Rather than sort insights by lecture, I’ve chosen to organize them by role—because Feynman’s message shifts meaning depending on who hears it.
For the Lay Person
For the Scientist
For the Politician
For the Leader (in any field)
Final Reflection: From Doubt, Freedom
At the end of his final lecture, Feynman doesn’t issue a warning. He offers a recognition:
It’s an unexpected closing gesture—gentler than the rest of the book, and quietly profound. Feynman suggests that belief need not be uniform for action to converge—and that intellectual freedom, if preserved, may still yield moral coherence.
And then, with characteristic understatement, he ends:
After spending so much time inside this man’s mind—tracing his doubts, following his logic, watching him wrestle with ignorance and clarity alike—I believe him.
So did I.
Postscript: In Dialogue with Other Readers
Public response to The Meaning of It All over the years has been as wide-ranging as the lectures themselves. Some readers embrace Feynman’s humility, humor, and plainspoken skepticism; others critique the book’s informal structure, its philosophical looseness, or its deviation from technical depth. Many highlight the lectures’ timeless relevance—particularly their defense of doubt and critique of uncritical belief—while some wish for more polished argument or firmer conclusions.
My own approach has been less reactive and more architectural: to treat these lectures not merely as transcribed thoughts, but as a layered system of reasoning with enduring strategic value. Where others found digression, I found design. Where some wanted clarity of doctrine, I found the courage to remain uncertain. This series is not meant to replace those personal impressions, but to deepen the frame in which they can be understood. show less
Feynman has always been my second-favorite scientist—just behind Carl Sagan. I grew up with Sagan in the Cosmos era, the voice in the television ether whispering about star stuff and cosmic humility. But it was Feynman who sharpened my mind in college—whose lectures, essays, and paradoxes taught me how to think like an engineer, reason like a physicist, and doubt show more like a scientist.
This review series became a way for me to map Feynman’s mindset against my own—methodical, skeptical, and anchored in systems thinking.
The Meaning of It All is not a tidy book. It’s three unscripted lectures, given in 1963, with all the wandering charm and restless clarity that defined Feynman. Beneath their informal tone lies a coherent worldview—one that reaches beyond science into politics, religion, education, and ethics. His concern isn’t what we know, but how we know—and whether society can still tell the difference between truth and performance, between knowledge and noise. What surprised me, as I worked through this material slowly and in full, was how contemporary it felt. Feynman’s warnings about pseudoscience, political certainty, public confusion, and institutional dishonesty could have been written last week.
These reviews are not simple summaries. They’re teaching tools—essays designed to draw out the core of Feynman’s arguments and show why they matter now. I want readers not only to understand what he said, but to see the architecture behind it, the worldview he inhabited, and the cultural context that shaped it. Feynman was speaking in the 1960s, but he could have been writing for tomorrow.
[Unfortunately, I can't post multiple reviews in LibraryThing, and I rapidly ran out of space in the review field. If you are interested in reading the entire four-part series, drop me a note. Otherwise, enjoy my conclusion below.]
Conclusion — Revisiting Feynman in an Unscientific Age
The Experience of Reviewing Feynman
This project began as an experiment—a close dissection of a short, curious book of lectures. But it became something more: a deliberate study, a long-distance conversation across six decades. An opportunity to hear—not just what Feynman thought—but how he thought. And to ask whether such thinking still has a place in public life.
I’ve always respected Feynman, not merely as a scientist, but as a citizen of the intellect. Reading The Meaning of It All in long form—closely, structurally, with space to reflect—was like watching a great engineer dismantle and rebuild the scaffolding of reason, in real time. His voice is unscripted, fallible, often wandering—but it never loses its integrity.
And what strikes me most, having now completed this review, is how little has changed. The same errors of thought, the same conflation of certainty with truth, the same institutional distortions of reason—all remain. We have better tools now, and worse habits. More data, and less doubt. We live in the future he imagined, but not the one he hoped for.
Modern Context: Why Feynman Still Matters
Feynman delivered these lectures in 1963, during a period of both scientific triumph and political anxiety. The Cold War loomed. The moon was within reach. Public faith in progress was high—but poorly understood. The idea that science could save us was popular. The understanding of what science actually is was rare.
Today, the surface has changed. But the structure? Not so much.
We are once again in an era of epistemic confusion. Scientific literacy is low, but belief in “science” is loud. Technology surrounds us, yet few can explain it. The culture of expertise is embattled—mistrusted by many, weaponized by others. Conspiracy and pseudoscience flourish not in the absence of information, but in its excess. Certainty is sold as leadership. Doubt is seen as weakness.
Feynman’s lectures are not relics. They are maps. They show how a free society loses its grip on truth—not through censorship, but through confusion. Not by suppressing knowledge, but by degrading the standards by which knowledge is earned.
Key Takeaways: What Feynman Offers Today
Rather than sort insights by lecture, I’ve chosen to organize them by role—because Feynman’s message shifts meaning depending on who hears it.
For the Lay Person
- Skepticism is a civic duty. Don’t believe something because it’s labeled “scientific.” Ask how it was tested. Who verified it? Can it be disproven?
- Anecdotes aren’t evidence. Strange stories, coincidences, and personal feelings may feel persuasive—but they don’t meet the threshold of proof.
- Statistical illiteracy is dangerous. Learn what a sample size is. Learn what uncertainty means. Numbers mislead when we don’t know how to weigh them.
For the Scientist
- Power demands responsibility. Science can give humanity the key to heaven—or hell. The difference lies in how it is used.
- Imagination is not optional. Discovery requires invention. Theories must be dreamed before they can be tested.
- Be honest with the public. Omission is a form of deception. Explain what you know—and what you don’t.
For the Politician
- Admit when you don’t know. False certainty breeds broken promises and brittle systems.
- Don’t fear public doubt. Democracy depends on disagreement. Systems that suppress dissent cannot evolve.
- Use expertise wisely. Authority without humility becomes ideology. Respect science, but don’t confuse it with omniscience.
For the Leader (in any field)
- Model intellectual humility. The courage to say “I don’t know” is rarer—and more powerful—than bravado.
- Design feedback into systems. Good governance, like good science, thrives on error correction.
- Cultivate the habit of doubt. Not paralysis, but constructive skepticism—the kind that refines ideas rather than demolishes them.
Final Reflection: From Doubt, Freedom
At the end of his final lecture, Feynman doesn’t issue a warning. He offers a recognition:
“I therefore consider the Encyclical of Pope John XXIII... to be one of the most remarkable occurrences of our time... I recognize this encyclical as the beginning, possibly, of a new future where we forget, perhaps, about the theories of why we believe things, as long as we ultimately in the end, as far as action is concerned, believe the same thing.” (p. 122)
It’s an unexpected closing gesture—gentler than the rest of the book, and quietly profound. Feynman suggests that belief need not be uniform for action to converge—and that intellectual freedom, if preserved, may still yield moral coherence.
And then, with characteristic understatement, he ends:
“Thank you very much. I enjoyed myself.”
After spending so much time inside this man’s mind—tracing his doubts, following his logic, watching him wrestle with ignorance and clarity alike—I believe him.
So did I.
Postscript: In Dialogue with Other Readers
Public response to The Meaning of It All over the years has been as wide-ranging as the lectures themselves. Some readers embrace Feynman’s humility, humor, and plainspoken skepticism; others critique the book’s informal structure, its philosophical looseness, or its deviation from technical depth. Many highlight the lectures’ timeless relevance—particularly their defense of doubt and critique of uncritical belief—while some wish for more polished argument or firmer conclusions.
My own approach has been less reactive and more architectural: to treat these lectures not merely as transcribed thoughts, but as a layered system of reasoning with enduring strategic value. Where others found digression, I found design. Where some wanted clarity of doctrine, I found the courage to remain uncertain. This series is not meant to replace those personal impressions, but to deepen the frame in which they can be understood. show less
Many appreciate Richard P. Feynman’s contributions to twentieth-century physics, but few realize how engaged he was with the world around him—how deeply and thoughtfully he considered the religious, political, and social issues of his day. Now, a wonderful book—based on a previously unpublished, three-part public lecture he gave at the University of Washington in 1963—shows us this other side of Feynman, as he expounds on the inherent conflict between science and religion, people’s distrust of politicians, and our universal fascination with flying saucers, faith healing, and mental telepathy. Here we see Feynman in top form: nearly bursting into a Navajo war chant, then pressing for an overhaul of the English language (if you show more want to know why Johnny can’t read, just look at the spelling of “friend”); and, finally, ruminating on the death of his first wife from tuberculosis. This is quintessential Feynman—reflective, amusing, and ever enlightening. show less
I know this may be a shock, but I've never read Feynman until now. Of course, I pick a transcription of a three night series of lectures for my first, rather than his...more thought out writings. But, one gets a sense of his humor. The three lectures, in 1963 Seattle, were titled, "The Uncertainty of Science", "The Uncertainty of Values", and "This Unscientific Age". Feynman's first two lectures had structure, and yet this still reads like the spoken lecture it was - sidetracks here and there. Okay, he was all over the place, and he admits his third lecture is a collection of thoughts, with less structure, certainly, and it reads like it.
Takeaways...
In The Uncertainty of Science, Feynman talks about science being "a method of finding show more things out". Observation is king in this aspect: if "there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be rpoved by observation, that rule is wrong." Simple, yet not simple. And
Feynman says that the more specific a scientific "rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test." I like that but he jumps right into
In his second lecture, The Uncertainty of Values, Feynman skirts and flirts with something Gould thought was non-overlapping. He says
In 1963, Russia was still the big threat, and he had thoughts on it:
Feynman's last lecture was as noted above, admittedly a collection of ideas and not with a specific point. He titled it "The Unscientific Age". Little did he know that 50 years later it would get worse. On judging an idea, an example:
Asking how we get new ideas, he answers "by analogy" and then illustrates
So, I whetted my appetite and now need to read more substance from the great physicist. show less
Takeaways...
In The Uncertainty of Science, Feynman talks about science being "a method of finding show more things out". Observation is king in this aspect: if "there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be rpoved by observation, that rule is wrong." Simple, yet not simple. And
But if a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, wrong, or stupid. ... Scientists take all those things that can be analyzed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean those things are unimportant.What follows is one of the many times he was all over the place that I mentioned at the start.
Feynman says that the more specific a scientific "rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test." I like that but he jumps right into
Words can be meaningless. If they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn, as in my example of “oomph,” then the proposition they state is almost meaningless, because you can explain almost anything by the assertion that things have a tendency to motility. A great deal has been made of this by philosophers, who say that words must be defined extremely precisely. Actually, I disagree somewhat with this; I think that extreme precision of definition is often not worthwhile, and sometimes it is not possible—in fact mostly it is not possible, but I will not get into that argument here.I think his point is meaningless. Definitions are not the issue. What words are used is. Regardless, he closes that first lecture with "Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open questions and an uncertain matter." If any scientist claims no uncertainty, I think said scientist needs to go back to school.
In his second lecture, The Uncertainty of Values, Feynman skirts and flirts with something Gould thought was non-overlapping. He says
So I have developed in a previous talk, and I want to maintain here, that it is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.By being uncertain, we can progress. On the other end, there is little as certain as a devout religious man, who will not progress. My thoughts, not his. At least not here. He does pose a thought exercise of a young man (recall, this is 1963...) of a religious family going off to a university to study science who learns to doubt. Feynman believed without data that more than half of scientists did not believe in their father's God and asks, why?
By answering this question I think that we will point up most clearly the problems of the relation of religion and science. Well, why is it? There are three possibilities. The first is that the young man is taught by the scientists, and I have already pointed out, they are atheists, and so their evil is spread from the teacher to the student, perpetually. . . . Thank you for the laughter. If you take this point of view, I believe it shows that you know less of science than I know of religion."If you take this point of view..." Love it! The second possibility was an assumption that a little knowledge was dangerous and the young man having learned a little science now thought he knew everything. And the third possibility was that the young man didn't understand science correctly, because science cannot disprove God. Feynman says "It is not my purpose to disprove anything." Maybe...maybe not. But Feynman does take the discussion in the right direction" 'Is there a God, or isn't there a God?" changes to the question 'How sure am I that there is a God?' " Now, continuing along what Gould would later label Non Overlapping Majesteria, Feynman says that ethical values lie outside the scientific realm, and responding to people who thought that science should have some conclusions about moral values:
I have several reasons for that. You see, if you don’t have a good reason, you have to have several reasons [I laughed out loud at that!], so I have four reasons to think that moral values lie outside the scientific realm. First, in the past there were conflicts. The metaphysical positions have changed, and there have been practically no effects on the ethical views. So there must be a hint that there is an independence. Second, I already pointed out that, I think at least, there are good men who practice Christian ethics and don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. [...] The third thing is that, as far as I know in the gathering of scientific evidence, there doesn't seem to be anywhere, anything that says whether the Golden Rule is a good one or not. I don't have any evidence of it on the basis of scientific study.... scientifically cannot be answered. Cause and effect can usually be determined, but an effect from cause may not necessarily follow. As to his first point and the hint of independence, I say there is a hint, but not confirmation. And to his second point, he traps himself with naming Christian ethics, which are neither exclusive nor original. (Nor divinely revealed.)
And finally I would like to make a little philosophical argument [...] "What should I do? Should I do this?"
In 1963, Russia was still the big threat, and he had thoughts on it:
Russia is a backward country. Oh, it is technologically advanced. I described the difference between what I like to call the science and technology. It does not apparently seem, unfortunately, that engineering and technological development are not consistent with suppressed new opinion. It appears, at least in the days of Hitler, where no new science was developed, nevertheless rockets were made, and rockets also can be made in Russia. I am sorry to hear that, but it is true that technological development, the applications of science, can go on without the freedom. Russia is backward because it has not learned that there is a limit to government power. The great discovery of the Anglo-Saxons is—they are not the only people who thought of it, but, to take the later history of the long struggle of the idea—that there can be a limit to government power.Today, members of a certain non-progressive political party claim to want to reduce government, yet they actually want to increase their power. Feynman also says
The fact that Russia is not free is clear to everyone, and the consequences in the sciences are quite obvious. One of the best examples is Lysenko, who has a theory of genetics, which is that acquired characteristics can be passed on to the offspring. This is probably true.Yeah. You can imagine my reaction. He qualifies that by saying that the major part of genetic behavior is different than Lysenko's theory. I suppose that's the good, uncertain, scientist talking.
Feynman's last lecture was as noted above, admittedly a collection of ideas and not with a specific point. He titled it "The Unscientific Age". Little did he know that 50 years later it would get worse. On judging an idea, an example:
The first one [example] has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions—that is, penetrating, interested, honest, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions—then he quickly gets stuck.A rather sad assessment, he tells a story about politics
Suppose two politicians are running for president, and one goes through the farm section and is asked, “What are you going to do about the farm question?” And he knows right away—bang, bang, bang. Now he goes to the next campaigner who comes through. “What are you going to do about the farm problem?” “Well, I don’t know. I used to be a general, and I don’t know anything about farming. But it seems to me it must be a very difficult problem, because for twelve, fifteen, twenty years people have been struggling with it, and people say that they know how to solve the farm problem. And it must be a hard problem. So the way that I intend to solve the farm problem is to gather around me a lot of people who know something about it, to look at all the experience that we have had with this problem before, to take a certain amount of time at it, and then to come to some conclusion in a reasonable way about it. Now, I can’t tell you ahead of time what conclusion, but I can give you some of the principles I’ll try to use - not to make things difficult for individual farmers, if there are any special problems we will have to have some way to take care of them," etc., etc., etc.I have direct experience with this. I gave the second answer in an interview. Not what the hiring authority was looking for, or wanting. And in today's politics, baldfaced lies are preferred by a certain minority of the electorate to anyone who honestly says we have to put in some work.
Now such a man would never get anywhere in this country, I think. It's never been tried, anyway., This is in the attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no answer, when the real fact of the matter is, in most cases, it is the other way around.
Asking how we get new ideas, he answers "by analogy" and then illustrates
First, we take witch doctors. The witch doctor says he knows how to cure. There are spirits inside which are trying to get out. You have to blow them out with an egg, and so on. Put a snakeskin on and take quinine from the bark of a tree. The quinine works. He doesn’t know he’s got the wrong theory of what happens. If I’m in the tribe and I’m sick, I go to the witch doctor. He knows more about it than anyone else. But I keep trying to tell him he doesn’t know what he’s doing and that someday when people investigate the thing freely and get free of all his complicated ideas they’ll learn much better ways of doing it. Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course. If you look at all of the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how long it takes to get one idea after the other, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and the pulls, I tell you they can't all be there. It's too much for one brain or a few brains to have cooked up in such a short time. However, I remind you that if you're in the tribe, there's nobody else to go to.Okay, I quoted this because his analogy of psychoanalysts to witch doctors was a gem. And damn if he isn't spot on: so much mumbo jumbo is such a comparatively short in the grand humanity scheme of things amount of time.
So, I whetted my appetite and now need to read more substance from the great physicist. show less
Apparently, this was the third of three lectures and Feynman was not prepared for it. At times he wanders, discursively over his opinions - all negative - on psychiatry, UFOs, rock music (kids-these-days), etc. It is interesting, even revealing.
Here we have 3 lectures generally entitled "A Scientist looks at Society", transcribed verbatim, apparently. I can hear, even picture Feynman when reading it; he had a distinctive way of speaking that was very natural and not polished at all, including hesitations, corrections and minor mistakes of language. Not often did he memorise a speech.
Here, Feynman wades a long way beyond his own territory to examine the relationship of science to politics, religion and other aspects of wider Western civilisation. He repeatedly points out that he is no authority, he could be wrong in his conclusions and so forth, which leads one towards examining his arguments on their merits rather than the celebrity or reputation of Feynman himself...which is show more exactly what Feynman wanted to achieve, I suspect: Don't take my word for it, question, examine and test for yourself - or put another way, take a more scientific approach to questions that are amenable to that approach.
If you want to know how to do that, well this book is a reasonable starting point. Other works by Feynman could help, too. It does no harm for practising scientists to be reminded of some basic principles, too. Various people have been insisting that I should respect Argument from Authority, recently and it is literally depressing me that they cannot see that if scientists took such an approach we would still have Plato's world-view. show less
Here, Feynman wades a long way beyond his own territory to examine the relationship of science to politics, religion and other aspects of wider Western civilisation. He repeatedly points out that he is no authority, he could be wrong in his conclusions and so forth, which leads one towards examining his arguments on their merits rather than the celebrity or reputation of Feynman himself...which is show more exactly what Feynman wanted to achieve, I suspect: Don't take my word for it, question, examine and test for yourself - or put another way, take a more scientific approach to questions that are amenable to that approach.
If you want to know how to do that, well this book is a reasonable starting point. Other works by Feynman could help, too. It does no harm for practising scientists to be reminded of some basic principles, too. Various people have been insisting that I should respect Argument from Authority, recently and it is literally depressing me that they cannot see that if scientists took such an approach we would still have Plato's world-view. show less
I'm beginning to get disillusioned towards all the Fyneman hype. After not finding "Surely You're Joking" very interesting or insightful, I find myself disappointed in his lectures as well.
The majority of his beliefs are deeply rooted in political matters and become shortsighted because of it. He seems to have had a deep hatred of anything socialist and specifically soviet and was enamoured by capitalism, considering it to almost lack flaws. He could not foresee a world in which extreme inequality would lead to regulatory capture and corporate rent-seeking to the detriment of scientific development through the collapse of public education.
His beliefs and ways of looking at the world did not stand the test of time, at least that's my show more opinion from reading this. show less
The majority of his beliefs are deeply rooted in political matters and become shortsighted because of it. He seems to have had a deep hatred of anything socialist and specifically soviet and was enamoured by capitalism, considering it to almost lack flaws. He could not foresee a world in which extreme inequality would lead to regulatory capture and corporate rent-seeking to the detriment of scientific development through the collapse of public education.
His beliefs and ways of looking at the world did not stand the test of time, at least that's my show more opinion from reading this. show less
Members
- Recently Added By
Author Information
153+ Works 41,284 Members
Some Editions
Work Relationships
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist; The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist
- Original title
- The Meaning Of It All
- Original publication date
- 1998
- People/Characters
- Richard Feynman
- First words
- I want to address myself directly to the impact of science on man's ideas in other fields, a subject Mr. John Danz particularly wanted to be discussed. In the first of these lectures I will talk about the nature of science an... (show all)d emphasize particularly the existence of doubt and uncertainty. In the second lecture I will discuss the impact of scientific views on political questions, in particular the question of national enemies, and on religious questions. And in the third lecture I will describe how society looks to me -- I could say how society looks to a scientific man, but it is only how it looks to me -- and what future scientific discoveries may produce in terms of social problems.
- Quotations
- This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences, and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle... I want to demand this freedom for future generations.
Russia is backward because it has not learned that there is a limit to government power.
No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creation... (show all)s, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression.
And in the near future the developments in biology will make problems like no one has ever seen before. The very rapid developments of biology are going to cause all kinds of very exciting problems. I haven't time to describe... (show all) them, so I just refer you to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", which gives some indication of the type of problem that future biology will involve itself in.
(This Unscientific Age)
Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course. If you look at all of the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how ... (show all)long it takes to get one idea after the other, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and the pulls, I tell you they can't all be there.
(This Unscientific Age)
No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creation... (show all)s, nor limit the forms of literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventures and the development of the human race.
(The Uncertainty of Values)
I would like to point out that people are not honest. Scientists are not honest at all, either. It's useless. Nobody's honest. Scientists are not honest. And people usually believe that they are. That makes it worse. By hone... (show all)st I don't mean that you only tell what's true. But you make clear the entire situation. You make clear all the information that is required for somebody else who is intelligent to make up their mind.
(This Unscientific Age)
This business of statistics is well known, and the problem of getting a good sample is a very serious one, and everybody knows about it, and it's a scientifically OK business. Except if you don't do it. The conclusion from al... (show all)l the researchers is that all the people in the world are as dopey as can be, and the only way to tell them anything is to perpetually insult their intelligence. This conclusion may be correct. On the other hand, it may be false. And we are making a terrible mistake if it is false.
(This Unscientific Age)
The first one has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions --- that is penetrating, intere... (show all)sted, honest, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions --- then he quickly gets stuck. It is like a child asking naive questions. If you ask naive but relevant questions, then almost immediately the person doesn't know the answer, if he is an honest man.
(This Unscientific Age)
This is in the attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no answer, when the real fact of the matter is, in most cases, it is the othe... (show all)r way around. And the result of this of course is that the politician must give an answer. And the result of this is that political promises can never be kept. It is a mechanical fact, it is impossible.
(This Unscientific Age)
It is always a good to entitle a lecture in a way that nobody can believe. It is either peculiar or it is just the opposite of what would you expect. And that is the reason, of course, for calling it "This Unscientific Age". ... (show all)Of course, if you mean by scientific the applications of technology, there is no doubt that this is a scientific age. There is no doubt at all that today we have all kinds of scientific applications which are causing us all kinds of trouble as well as giving us all kinds of advantages. And so in that sense it certainly is a scientific age. If you mean by a scientific age an age in which science is developing rapidly and advancing fully as fast as it can, then this is definitely a scientific age. ... But if you mean that this is an age of science in the sense that in art, in literature, and in people's attitudes and understandings, and so forth science plays a large part, I don't think it is a scientific age at all.
(This Unscientific Age)
The government of the United States was developed under the idea that nobody knew how to make a government, or how to govern. The result is to invent a system to govern when you don't know how. And the way to arrange it is to... (show all) permit a system, like we have, wherein new ideas can be developed and tried out and thrown away. The writers of the Constitution knew of the value of doubt. In the age that they lived, for instance, science had already developed far enough to show the possibilities and potentialities that are the result of having uncertainty, the value of having the openness of possibility. The fact that you are not sure means that it is possible that there is another way some day. That openness of possibility is an opportunity. Doubt and discussion are essential to progress. The United States government, in that respect, is new, it's modern, and it is scientific. It is all messed up, too. Senator sell their votes for a dam in their state and discussions get all excited and lobbying replaces the minority's chance to represent itself, and so forth. The government of the United States is not very good, but it, ..., is the greatest government on the earth today, is the most satisfactory, the most modern, but not very good.
(The Uncertainty of Values)
Doubt is clearly a value in the science. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter. I expect in the next lectures to discuss that very point and to try to demonstrate that it is important to do... (show all)ubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value.
(The Uncertainty of Science)
Words can be meaningless. It they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusion can be drawn, as in my example of "oomph", then the proposition they state is almost meaningless, because you can explain almost anything.
<... (show all)br>(The Uncertainty of Science)
What is science? The word is usually used to mean one of three things, or a mixture of them. I do not think we need to be precise --- it is not always a good idea to be too precise. Science means sometimes, a special method o... (show all)f finding things out. Sometimes it means the body of knowledge arising from the things found out. It may also mean the new things you can do when you have found something out, or the actual doing of new things. This last field is usually called technology ... the popular definition of science is partly technology, too.
(The Uncertainty of Science)
There is practically nothing that I am going to say tonight that could not easily have been said by philosophers of the seventeenth century. Why repeat all this? Because there are new generations born every day. Because there... (show all) are great ideas developed in the history of man, and these ideas do not last unless they are passed purposely and clearly from generation to generation.
(The Uncertainty of Science)
Many old ideas have become such common knowledge that it is not necessary to talk about or explain them again. But the ideas associated with the problems of the development of science, as far as I can see by looking around me... (show all), are not of the kind that everyone appreciates.
(The Uncertainty of Science) - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)Thank you very much. I enjoyed myself.
- Blurbers
- Davies, Paul; Chown, Marcus
- Original language
- English
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 2,164
- Popularity
- 9,345
- Reviews
- 33
- Rating
- (3.85)
- Languages
- 10 — Czech, English, French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 35
- ASINs
- 17