Feynman: Knowing versus Understanding

Richard Feynman on the differences of merely knowing how to reason mathematically and understanding how and why things are physically analyzed in the way they are.

[@david-joeklotz9558]

I'm sure I'm not alone in realizing this. But when Professor Feynman lectures he also teaches how to think and study. This was natural to him. What a wonderful teacher he was

[@nickscurvy8635]

This is ideally what every teacher should be doing as a natural extension of their job. Feynman was definitely a great teacher.

[@DaviSilva-oc7iv]

I've been thinking lately that maybe the greatest thing a teacher can teach is not their subject directly, but teach to be curious, to make the student go and study and think by himself about the subject.

[@david-joeklotz9558]

@@DaviSilva-oc7iv I would say both

[@juliegreenbaumlevine813]

He was my Uncle 💕

[@david-joeklotz9558]

@@juliegreenbaumlevine813 That’s super 😎 Then you are the daughter of Joan?

[@testodude]

Love the fact that one of the great minds of the 20th century never lost his thick Brooklyn accent.

[@jimgag2]

testodude Richard Feynman was born in queens NY. I do agree, however that he never lost his accent.

[@solidus1995]

jimgag2 was he Italian?

[@prateekhegde8560]

Lord Sathanus no

[@herbertbielefelder341]

He was Jewish.

[@jaredtweed7826]

Subscribe to my channel!

[@paultheaudaciousbradford6772]

Feynman was a jewel. A great scientist, a great teacher and a great, great character!

[@YossiHohashvili]

A Jewish jewel ;)

[@peterowley2014]

He was full of sh17 and didn't know d1ck!

[@joedefraties3963]

@@YossiHohashvili quite a strange thing to say about a man who never practiced Judaism.

[@safaqksd2827]

He was catholic

[@random22453]

@@safaqksd2827 he was an athiest

[@kenhaley4]

He was a true genius--not only as a physicist, but as a science communicator. He didn't just teach physics...he taught people how to think!

[@name_adi]

That's... that's what physics... literally is. That's what EDUCATION is....umm just how do they teach physics there?

[@markkennedy9767]

This great man discusses more philosophy, psychology and science in five minutes than all my years at university combined. Remarkable. And it's not a trivial point he's making. This is a very deep insight.

[@cifey]

I suspect it must be frustrating for guys at that level to pursue some game changing thought experiment but be put off because there is already a practical but superficial solution.

[@speedwagon1824]

Psychology is science

[@jayocaine2946]

​@@speedwagon1824 hardly

[@mushfiqahasan2263]

No wonder he is the greatest teacher of all time!! He cares about the students and tries understanding them by being in their shoes...thinking like them.and find a solution in their way...indeed a genius teacher😢

[@jordank4889]

​@@jayocaine2946beautifully illustrating Feymans point here

[@goosecouple]

"Studying without thinking, is useless. Thinking without studying, is perilous." - Confucius

[@JupiterChamsae991102]

@Ashwary Patil will be risky or will be in vain since without reading books/learning from information, facts or already-built theories, one will go into "perilous" situation where everything in that person's mind is subjective stuff

[@bobdixon6369]

I'm sorry but that statement makes me feel useless and in danger. I'll just go watch gilligan's island reruns and be quiet.

[@h4rder10]

and what exactly he meant by 'studying' ?

[@h4rder10]

@@adolfhitler4991 confucius ... chinese philosopher ... try wiki

[@tsunghan_yu]

「學而不思則罔，思而不學則殆」

[@RichardFeynmanRules]

"Newton’s ideas about space and time agreed with experiment very well, but in order to get the correct motion of the orbit of Mercury, which was a tiny, tiny difference, the difference in the character of the theory needed was enormous. The reason is that Newton’s laws were so simple and so perfect, and they produced definite results. In order to get something that would produce a slightly different result it had to be completely different. In stating a new law you cannot make imperfections on a perfect thing; you have to have another perfect thing. So the differences in philosophical ideas between Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravitation are enormous. ~ What are these philosophies ? They are really tricky ways to compute consequences quickly. A philosophy, which is sometimes called an understanding of the law, is simply a way that a person holds the laws in his mind in order to guess quickly at consequences. Some people have said, and it is true in cases like Maxwell’s equations, ‘Never mind the philosophy, never mind anything of this kind, just guess the equations. The problem is only to compute the answers so that they agree with experiment, and it is not necessary to have a philosophy, or argument, or words, about the equation’. ~ That is good in the sense that if you only guess the equation you are not prejudicing yourself, and you will guess better. On the other hand, maybe the philosophy helps you to guess. It is very hard to say. For those people who insist that the only thing that is important is that the theory agrees with experiment, I would like to imagine a discussion between a Mayan astronomer and his student. The Mayans were able to calculate with great precision predictions, for example, for eclipses and for the position of the moon in the sky, the position of Venus, etc. It was all done by arithmetic. They counted a certain number and subtracted some numbers, and so on. There was no discussion of what the moon was. There was no discussion even of the idea that it went around. They just calculated the time when there would be an eclipse, or when the moon would rise at the full, and so on. ~ Suppose that a young man went to the astronomer and said, ‘I have an idea. Maybe those things are going around, and there are balls of something like rocks out there, and we could calculate how they move in a completely different way from just calculating what time they appear in the sky’. ‘Yes’, says the astronomer, ‘and how accurately can you predict eclipses?’ He says, ‘I haven’t developed the thing very far yet’. Then says the astronomer, ‘Well, we can calculate eclipses more accurately than you can with your model, so you must not pay any attention to your idea because obviously the mathematical scheme is better’. ~ There is a very strong tendency, when someone comes up with an idea and says, ‘Let’s suppose that the world is this way’, for people to say to him, ‘What would you get for the answer to such and such a problem?’ And he says, ‘I haven’t developed it far enough’. And they say, ‘Well, we have already developed it much further, and we can get the answers very accurately’. So it is a problem whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas. Another way of working, of course, is to guess new principles. In Einstein’s theory of gravitation he guessed, on top of all the other principles, the principle that corresponded to the idea that the forces are always proportional to the masses. He guessed the principle that if you are in an accelerating car you cannot distinguish that from being in a gravitational field, and by adding that principle to all the other principles, he was able to deduce the correct laws of gravitation. ~ One of the most important things in this ‘guess - compute consequences - compare with experiment’ business is to know when you are right. It is possible to know when you are right way ahead of checking all the consequences. You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. It is always easy when you have made a guess, and done two or three little calculations to make sure that it is not obviously wrong, to know that it is right. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right - at least if you have any experience - because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in. Your guess is, in fact, that something is very simple. If you cannot see immediately that it is wrong, and it is simpler than it was before, then it is right. ~ The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought. What we need is imagination, but imagination in a terrible strait-jacket. We have to find a new view of the world that has to agree with everything that is known, but disagree in its predictions somewhere, otherwise it is not interesting. And in that disagreement it must agree with nature. ~ If you can find any other view of the world which agrees over the entire range where things have already been observed, but disagrees somewhere else, you have made a great discovery. It is very nearly impossible, but not quite, to find any theory which agrees with experiments over the entire range in which all theories have been checked, and yet gives different consequences in some other range, even a theory whose different consequences do not turn out to agree with nature. A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination…" - Richard Feynman, from "The Character of Physical Law"

[@otiebrown9999]

RichardFeynmanRules. Excellent !!

[@HuntingTarg]

I would normally cry 'foul - transcripted monolouge' But Feynman's thoughts and sentences are so well-constructed that they engage rather than bore me. Thank you, well done. I'll have to get that book.

[@TheGamerAdventurersX]

Thanks

[@viniciusgoes6176]

Thanks

[@painetcirque5695]

Thank you for the transcript and thus, for the honor you're paying to the author of these thoughts. I come late to know of him and I am mesmerized. It teaches us to think, freely think and feel free at thinking.

[@IrizarryBrandon]

"You can't make imperfections on a perfect thing - you have to have another perfect thing."

[@JadePX]

So good.

[@Mirsab]

I don't get it

[@animeshpathak3921]

@@Mirsab you cant find imperfections in a ideal perfect thing without comparing it to another perfect thing . only then you can relate them both .

[@johnmichael1594]

and yet MSS is still talking about the big bang... SOOOO many imperfect bandages applied to a fundamentally flawed idea, yet MSS is still unwilling to discard it. SMH... how far science has degenerated from it's peak.

[@johnmichael1594]

+Muhammad Misrab - it MEANS that whenever the theory FAILS to correctly predict reality, the only VALID course of action is to DISCARD the theory completely and start from scratch. it is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG to cling to the theory and try to apply band-aid "fixes" (imperfections) to account for the discrepancy. yet that is what main stream science has been doing for most of the last century, and the "fixes" have gotten progressively more absurd, eg, inflationary period and dark energy.

[@fwcolb]

Almost 60 years ago, I was using a similar approach when preparing lessons in high school science. I was inspired by a two volume work of James Conant, a former president of Harvard in which he recounted the search for understanding by empirical methods. Feynman used to claim that, based on empirical methods, we guess the theory. And here in this Feynman lecture, we see that different people guess differently which theory to select. Conant explored the process of selection among theories. Conant was a mentor of Thomas Kuhn. And Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, may have been inspired by Conant. A philosopher will see that guessing the theory solves the problem faced by the logical positivists. Theory is not entailed by empirical evidence. There is no compelling link from evidence to theory. We guess theories. Popper's falsifiability has its own problems. It might take a decade, a century or a millennium to falsify a theory. The reply to this is that Popper was not relying on actual attempts to falsify a theory, but on the question: Is the theory CAPABLE of being falsified? If the Big Bang is a scientific theory, then Popper would say there has to be some way to falsify it. If not, the Big Bang Theory is pseudoscience. Feynman was preoccupied by these philosophical questions. Even though they were not the focus of his lectures, one can see that he designed his approach based on his Popperian epistemology of science. How do we know? How can we find out? How certain can we be? Do we really know? Can we really know? Are we fooling ourselves? Do we understand? Will this theory be falsified? If you teach science, have a look at Conant's Harvard Case Histories in Experimental-Science in two volumes. Second hand copies are probably available. Abebooks has volume I at $11.70. Amazon volumes 1+2 at $38. www.amazon.com/Harvard-Histories-Experimental-Science-Vols/dp/0674374002 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Popper, Positivism, Ian Hacking, Nancy Cartwright plato.stanford.edu/ Enjoy!

[@ibperson7765]

I think one thing that popper missed, even though he was very suspicious of big bang and evolution as falsifiable, was that the uniqueness of those is that they are not scientific theories in the normal sense of operational science and laws governing how the universe *behaves* (emphasis on the present tense of behaves). They are actually claims about what happened in the past. Forensic science. In some ways akin to detective work. The demand that the results are only science if you conclude the explanation is some naturalistic mechanism.. is ever-present and far more intense than many realize, esp in evolutionary biology. How natural selection works is normal science. Claiming that historically all life came about from a single cell is origins science. (Btw due to orphan genes many in the field are abandoning that and calling the “tree of life” a possible “forest of life”). The public thinks the evidence, without a priori demand for naturalistic results, is much better than it actually is for evolution. Science somehow moved from “finding explantations of natural phenomena” to “finding naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena”. When this is applied to forensic science, it disallows certain findings. And very few understand how powerful the impact is. The game is to find a naturalistic explanation. You see people playing that game with evolution and first-person subjective consciousness and fine tuning. Quote from Richard Lewontin, Harvard Evolutionary Biologist: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]

[@theTdawgYo]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

[@dharmashekhar1047]

@@theTdawgYo Please read his book "Two modes of thought" by james conant bryant . This book in my view is the core idea ! it is just 50-60 pages book !

[@Javed-Solangi]

Great ❤️🙏

[@christineliang4670]

Thank you so much for sharing !

[@VestinVestin]

It warms my heart how he trenchantly recognized these bits of philosophy of science as both fundamentally unscientific and crucially important.

[@stevenliu1377]

The video cut him off (I suspect quite intentionally) at precisely the point where he goes on to dissuade, in effect, such an interpretation. There is nothing fundamentally unscientific about what he tries to convey there. As Dawkins is painfully conscious of the fact that, if you are going to tell people to keep an open mind, then you better qualify it with "but not so open your brain falls out, you silly puppies," Feynman seems painfully aware that, if you are going to tell people that agreement with the sum of evidence isn't everything, then you better follow it up with "but it still has to agree with the sum of evidence, you academic clowns." He took great care to do that, but it would be to no avail because scissors were already invented. =S

[@nammashraqi4029]

@@stevenliu1377 This is the most intelligent KZbin comment of all time

[@zikiamin4215]

Naoum Mashraqi can u explain what is meant by scissors already being invented.

[@dorohe5286]

@@zikiamin4215 it mean the video being cut

[@ellefirogeni4624]

@@stevenliu1377 Listening only to the part shared via this video doesn’t leave one holding an ‘unscientific’ argument-you are correct in your following.

[@rsn9394]

In school and college we're just taught theories and applications. There is no philosophy to teaching something. Feynman had a really neat way of taking you through the same thought process he has. And he doesn't emphasise only the theories but the fact that they hold philosophical value. They can make you think about different things differently. Make you do very different things even though they're the same.

[@MrDannyg77]

I could listen to him endlessly. Everything he says is so easy to understand. His anecdotes so instructive. He’s always been my favorite Manhattan project physicist. But because of his character not any other reason.

[@incogniftoar3943]

Anyone who is kind enough, please put subtitle. That would really help.

[@incogniftoar3943]

@Aakash Mandava ahh, alright. Thanks for your willingness

[@randomdude9135]

Bruh, there's literally a comment about it with almost 1k likes.

[@incogniftoar3943]

@@randomdude9135 ah, you're right. But somehow that comment wasn't top comment for me before

[@w3irdo343]

Ahh his Brooklyn accent, am too not getting it well

[@jesbinjain2085]

@@w3irdo343 its easy to understand

[@Georgealex77]

This is why Feynman was special. The way he explained the most difficult ideas were phenomenal, unlike most in todays day and age making trivial things sound “smart” when in reality it is just common sense.

[@Baekstrom]

It takes a genius to explain something complicated like this so clearly that practically everybody can understand it

[@TomisaLami]

I don't know who said it or where and when I heard it or even if it's something I just made up myself. But I always remember a quote "facts are not as important as the interpretations of those observing the facts"

[@nazeerahammed3019]

I would love to hear him speak all day, everyday. What a legend he was!👏

[@radioactivepotato2068]

I love how he still sounds like "he's walking here".

[@Michael-tq6xm]

when you understand the principles of what he explains, your puzzle solving skills increase tenfold. wonderful guy and from his lectures the inspiration to understand and seek truths would be planted surely in the mind of any young and old deep thinker

[@krishnapartha]

Priceless documentation here. I am eternally grateful for a glimpse into the mind of this great being. 🙏🏾

[@DuncanSmith]

This was a very interesting lecture on the importance of understanding rather than just knowing about a topic.

[@itinerantpatriot1196]

"It is a problem as to whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas." That's a keeper. A lot of ideas with good intentions have gone sideways.

[@haroldasraz]

Fyeman's passion resonates through time and space. Thank you for sharing the video.

[@prismaticspace4566]

I really appreciate his way of explaining the most difficult philosophical problem in such a simple and elegant way. Most academic scholars are just good at throwing long sentences and scientific fictions to serious audience.

[@FistroMan]

But think this man is a nobel prize. We need to work with regular people too, like US. Not evrybody can create a poem while farting...

[@NazriB]

Lies again? Dear Bundesliga

[@KingTranscended]

I like how he showed the vast difference between understanding and knowing and how understanding is more important and thus the goal of learning.

[@CocoaBeachLiving]

So refreshing, coming back to these lectures from time to time 🙂 They never get old.

[@mdellertson]

Are there more? This is the first time I have seen this one.

[@janicehemi8983]

everytime i stumble across these lectures...year after...i stop, pause and am in awe all over again

[@xinrenwang7768]

It reminds me that in Finance they use many different names for exact same thing - i.e. discount rate, IRR, and YTM all have the mathmatically same representation under some circumstances, but when it comes to different scenario or if you try to use them as input for computing another variable the whole story changes. I found that quite interesting back in days when I was in school, glad to see everthing's explained in a splendid way in this video.

[@wadecodez]

Yep it’s because subjects overlap and people only can accomplish so much in a lifetime. You can push super far in one direction only to realize some guy in a totally different field has already discovered what you discovered or is using the name for something else. What’s kind of crazy is people can only remember words up to a certain length and there are more things to be described by words than we have memorable words for. It’s possible to give everything a unique name but it would be impossible to remember. This is why context is extremely important. Without context your version of a word could have entirely different meaning than another persons word. Even crazier is that dictionaries only show the most common definitions. So if you really want to get your point across be repetitive and use analogies. That is how Richard thinks and speaks.

[@frankhoffman3566]

Feynman's lectures are always so illuminating.

[@isellburritos123]

(A) is Newton and (B) is Einstein. "Two theories that get you to the same answer." A major sideswipe on Issac Newton! Saying that Newton got us to calculate science, BUT Einstein was the one that gave us a way to "understand science"! Big words! Fighting words in his generation, "who is the better scientist? Newton vs. Einstein?". Feynman basically says that Newton was like the Spiritual God Theorist of calculating the next eclipse using 'god theories'...versus the Einsteinian mathematician who understands the movements of celestial orbits! Then he says "...so it is a problem to whether or NOT...to worry about the theories behind ideas". The super irony set up is that Newton was the the mathematician "calculating" orbits. This lecture has it all.. Sarcasm, Smarts and Ironic like crazy. Great upload, shows how smart this dude was! We need more like you these days!

[@marianmusic7221]

A man for whom the science and the art of explaining was the biggest joy!

[@naifalkhunaizi4372]

Just love for this brilliant scientist, I keep watching his lectures over and over and every time I learn a new thing.

[@berke4456]

this comment looks like it's from the beginning times of youtube

[@leroyjones6958]

Yep exactly. His voice reminds me so much of Norton on The Honeymooners. Learning physics from a sewer worker. Priceless. One of Feynman's best all time moments was during the congressional investigation into the space shuttle Challenger explosion some 100 seconds after launch was when Feynman took an O-ring, put a clamp on it, and put it in some ice water. He left it in there a while so it would cool down. Then he showed everyone how the deformed, cold O-ring kept its flattened shape after the clamp was removed. Only Feynman would have ever done that. Absolutely brilliant man!

[@warrenstemphly5756]

This guys sounds like he’s gonna say “ Hey pal, so you think you’re a tough guy, eh?”

[@verfuncht]

I'm not sure he has the specific speech pattern for that. I feel like he sounds more like he's about to say "99% of the income in this country is going to 1% of the population!"

[@bullymaguire2061]

Eh?

[@kahlildozier1397]

his contemporaries commonly said he sounded like "a bum" when he talked. lol

[@sun_catchers_music]

Ahahahah, agreed

[@TheOnlySilverUnicorn]

@@kahlildozier1397 I don't know whether it's true, but I recall hearing that Carl Sagan originally had a thick Brooklyn accent, too. Too few people took him seriously because they couldn't get past his "tough guy" accent to hear his words and ideas. So he deliberately and conscientiously worked hard to speak differently, so that people would hear his words and ideas rather than his accent. The result: Sagan has a very distinctive speech pattern. In the end, people still noticed how he spoke but they paid close attention to his words, too. If it's true, I guess it worked well enough. He's remembered as one of the greatest science communicators.

[@TheJunkalos]

I think he realized this but just to himself, the fact that you had to make that final statement, "it is a problem as to weather or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas" is a philosophical statement, thus making it a necessary tool whether you want it or not.

[@droichead12]

This 5 minutes video should be compulsory to anyone going to college.

[@SuperKako17]

s/ going to college//

[@dan8t669]

really? the first minute sound like the ramblings of a mad man. didn't watch the rest

[@Donjonneau]

Not for me. I think like Socrate to remember I'm imperfect but have talents; I think like Einstein to globalize and fill my perception of Life, the Universe and so on by imagination to make objectivity taking a better path. I'm aware so I chill instead of loosing my direction.

[@rseasyguidesto]

@@dan8t669 cuz u dumb

[@dan8t669]

@Deanmanns *hurr durr* That's how it sounds when you speak.

[@jacksonzheng3103]

The last point is so true, people in school are often taught to remember or memorise things but ask the students to explain it in their own words or develop the ideas further, they suddenly have no idea and their mind goes blank. Take for example the fact that the mitochondria is powerhouse of the cell, hardly anyone can explain how it produces energy in the form of ATP or how ATP functions to give cells energy or where the cell even got the energy in the first place to produce mitochondria. Yet, almost everyone knows that it is the powerhouse of the cell due to the thousands of memes on the internet and the hours students spend remembering it in school!

[@cesarcueto1995]

Ok

[@patrickedwards2078]

You have a good point but I did learn all the things you said in biology class. It’s probably more the memes fault for the lack of understanding lol

[@homognitor3378]

Ответы на эти вопросы требуют все большего изучения биологии, в частности про митохондрии, синтез АТФ и её роль в клетке.

[@kudakwashekucherera1889]

True

[@ASLUHLUHCE]

From Brian Greene's book, 'The Hidden Reality': "Physics is not just about making predictions. If one day we were to find a black box that always and accurately predicted the outcome of our particle physics experiments and our astronomical observations, the existence of the box would not bring inquiry in these fields to a close. There's a difference between making predictions and understanding them. The beauty of physics, its raison d'être, is that it offers insights into why things in the universe behave the way they do. The ability to predict behaviour is a big part of physics' power, but the heart of physics would be lost if it didn't give us a deep understanding of the hidden reality underlying what we observe."

[@TheOnlySilverUnicorn]

So beautifully worded. OK, you've just convinced me to read Brian Greene's books.

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

That’s wonderful. Thanks for sharing it.

[@voxxyapeiron2015]

We will observe with concern how long a useful truth can be known and exist -Benjamin Franklin

[@directajith]

Somebody said: If you know, you do. If you understand, you teach

[@ajacobs100]

Otherwise known as: Those who can't do, teach.

[@hdmc100]

AJITH THOMAS well-spoken

[@fahadus]

AJ 7 that's true of 'most' teachers. This right here is the exception that proves the rule.

[@anandpatel1074]

I understand addition but I don't teach it.

[@mariuszlubko8014]

AJITH THOMAS he knew. And he understood. I said that.

[@donn7152]

The way he uses the space and his use of gestures is so engaging. Also - the camera work is great...so good you don't even remember there is a camera.

[@XenoContact]

I would fucking run to class half an hour before it starts if I had him as my teacher instead of the crap I got to deal with where I am now !

[@Qu3ridity]

+XenoContact I would camp outside the classroom like it's black friday.

[@allnamesaretakenb4]

+Qu3ridity I would, I would... like, drive, trans-AM to... like, traffic jam of, and then, like, coffe wait and camp, there.... I would... set up sh.. set up shop next to... door, way, doorway... wait, and then next....

[@CHINESEDUDEZ8897]

+Qu3ridity i would do the same man!

[@XenoContact]

Update: I am currently failing this semester.

[@jojisaiga2189]

lmao me too

[@mayhagedoorn6111]

I always say to myself: 'Science isn't necessarily about finding an answer, but finding if there is an answer and in what ways to get there. '

[@xMrJanuaryx]

It's an intriguing paradox that the more we comprehend a concept, the more challenging it becomes to grasp new ones. For instance, in a world where everyone knows and understands 2+2, it would be effortless to discover 2+3. However, in a world where it takes years to understand a complex idea, it's tempting to settle for mere knowledge instead of true comprehension. As Feynman pointed out, if we only know about a concept, it's much harder to learn something new about it. Perhaps that's why new developments in math and physics are becoming increasingly rare.

[@ultimateman1234]

I can't help but think of quantum mechanics when Feynman uses the example of the Mayan astronomer. QED is an incredibly successful scientific theory which is famously counterintuitive. The phrase "shut up and calculate" summarizes how many people, including physicists, feel about the interpretations surrounding the quite odd behaviors of particles/waves at the quantum scale. Yet here is the father of QED himself using a simple example of a Mayan astronomer to show that knowing how to do something is not the same as understanding it. Just maybe one day scientists will uncover a theory of quantum mechanics which not only makes all of the same predictions, but also gives explanation to the strange and probabilistic nature of the theory. It's important to keep this Mayan example in mind as science continues to progress. As successful as quantum mechanics is, those who espouse that one should not question the ideas or interpretations of the theory are undermining the very spirit that has allowed for the progress that birthed the theory itself.

[@i4004]

i'm questioning which tangible inventions did q.mech. theory yield? yeap, it's good to question!

[@ultimateman1234]

All modern computers depend on our incredibly successful theories of quantum mechanics. Intel, AMD, and other computer processor manufacturers utilize quantum mechanics in their processor design.

[@i4004]

no, invention of transistor (and subsequently ic, ie many transistors in one housing) has nothing to do with q.mech. inspect it to some depth and you'll reach that conclusion. some recent improvements, perhaps, but i asked about invention, not about slight improvement in design. quantum computing would be such invention, but as we know this didn't materialize.

[@pauligrossinoz]

pjohnston - it's a bit more complex than that. The equations for transistor behavior are not based on quantum physics, but rather the limits to reducing the size of each transistor requires an understanding of quantum mechanics. For example, the smaller the transitor, the greater the chance that quantum tunneling occurs and the electrons that are supposed to be trapped in the transistor tend to leak away. Also is very hard to manufacture very tiny transistors because the masks needed to draw the transitors on the semiconductor tend to exhibit fringe effects, making the result more fuzzy, with effects like interference patterns as the features on the semiconductorbecome smaller.

[@ultimateman1234]

I never said anything like "the equations for transistor behavior are based on quantum physics." Everything you said is true. But it doesn't contradict anything I said.

[@ViratKohli-jj3wj]

My favourite educator of all time.

[@ZombieNightmareSquad]

Vague title of the video. As I reckoned this meaning was that one should not be so quick to dismiss new thougths or ideas about already known things. Because this apperent new idea might tell another story about the already existing theory.

[@ArbitraryxIntentions]

The most important thing i would point out. Is that in the Mayan astronomer thought experiment Feynman used. The Mayan astronomers could very accurately calculate where and when planets and stars would be in the night sky. They *knew* where they would be, and when they would be there. I'd like to point out, that this is no easy feat. The thing is, they could very accurately know where they would be, based off of the model they created. Their model however, could not tell them, or more importantly, even *conjecture* about what those objects may be, and why they were in a specific spot in the night sky at a specific time. The student on the other hand, had a model that was not as good at predicting the motions of planets and stars but at the same time, the model actually shed more light as to what those objects *possibly* were, and *possibly* why they were there. The Mayan astronomers *knew* absolutely more than the student. The student didn't necessarily understand more than the astronomers, but rather *pursued* understanding more so than the astronomers. There's a vast difference in thinking between the two perspectives, but it's a bit difficult to see without really looking hard enough. One mode of thought is willing to be inaccurate, is willing to imagine purely imaginary concepts to explain something, the other is simply looking to know something. I think an even better example may be how we first conjectured the idea that all matter was made up of little objects we call atoms. This idea was actually first proposed by Greek philosophers. The thing is, we had absolutely no way, or even *idea* as to how to test or prove this concept, for another couple thousand years. So what was the point of trying to think about this and even spend time discussing it, if there is no way at the current moment or foreseeable future, to scientifically prove it? Regardless of what you think about it, it can't be proven, so it's not science. So what's the point? This is where.. science starts to go more into philosophy, science actually first emerged from philosophy. This is why Feynman's conclusion at the end of the video, is that it is a problem, whether or not we should worry about philosophies behind ideas. I would also point out that, your comment, and the large number of thumbs up on your comment, is likely a big part of the reason why Feynman felt the need to talk about this, and why this video is up and titled what it is. Even really smart people, have a difficult time seeing the difference between knowing, and understanding. Probably because it's likely more so a matter of mindset, than it is intelligence. I hope my comment helped to shed more light on this topic.

[@biancaaguglia3742]

+Roshawn Terrell Very good, well-thought reply. And I love your closing sentence: "it's likely more so a matter of mindset, than it is intelligence." Brilliant. :-) There are a lot of very smart people who make foolish, expensive mistakes because they are so confident in complex (and true) formulas and methods. For example, I just read a story told by Charles Munger (Warren Buffett's business partner) about a group of brilliant people (IQs in the 160s, 2 Nobel prize winners) who lost $2 billion dollars in the stock market because they invested based on a sophisticated, complex system. Their knowledge was solid, but incomplete. They definitely failed to understand how the stock market could "mess up" their formulas. On the other hand, there are "average" people who make brilliant decisions because they have a good understanding of how life works (and by life I mean all the interactions between hard science, philosophy, psychology, that unpredictable creature called "human" and so on). Many of these average people don't know what scientists or experts do. Still, their common sense and understanding, makes them amazing decision makers. To use an analogy, you don't have to know how a car engine works, to get a lot of smart use out of a car. But it sure helps to know how the engine works if you happen to take a trip across who knows what lonely roads and your car breaks down. :-) So, the best way to be is to have both knowledge and understanding. And the easiest way to do that is to become part of a brilliant team who has the mindset you talked about.

[@007myzorro]

Manny McMad iikk

[@007myzorro]

Bianca Aguglia ii

[@007myzorro]

Manny McMad k

[@billydagenham]

I just turned in my last homework of my PhD in physics in a class I had been putting off. I immediately when to KZbin and googled Feynman to mark the occasion. This did not disappoint

[@patbrennan6572]

Richard was a pioneer in the field of reason, many followed because he blazed the trail for them..

[@nobisphysics7651]

I just love this guy. My ideas and thoughts perfectly matches to his.

[@eodmax85]

It was a testament to my high school science teachers when they introduced me to the great Richard Feynman... and it was also a testament that my University (California State) science professors didn't. Not one mention of Dr. Feynman in physics, math, chemistry or psychology classes. It says a lot about modern Uni. I also remember a physics lecture in an Army class mentioned Dr. Feynman and used some of his lectures as supplement to the course material. What a brave new world we find ourselves in...

[@vineelchandra4435]

The way he explains things is extraordinary

[@BladeRunner-td8be]

This never occurred to me. The hypothetic example worked well and served its purpose. I am sure that the Mayan professor, whether he admitted it or not, was quite aware that his understanding of all the shiny objects in the sky was severely lacking, however. Richard Feynman was a genius, but when he decided to teach people what he knew and didn't know, for that matter, that's when he became the legend that he is. Cheers

[@williamsuesholtz5220]

It’s like watching Ed Norton teach physics. This man was simultaneously brilliant and amusing.

[@derycktrahair8108]

Norton: "That's right Ralph ." GLEASON.: " Get out of here...bang zoom...just like those Meteors.."

[@DytliefMoller]

I wish I could meet and talk with Mr. Feynman, Rest in peace, your words inspired many :)

[@tomorourke6301]

That was said so wonderfully and so succinctly.

[@jpcastledark]

I'm kind of obssesed with this man. I watched some of his lectures in youtube and thought he was a natural teacher, born to do it. Then I saw him in the last Oppenheimer movie being part of the Manhattan project in Los Alamos and playing the bongos at the end of the film, wow, this guy was really gifted.

[@juv7026]

i hate the word ‘gifted’. People of his caliber make themselves. The only thing they were born with was curiosity that was not crumpled growing up.

[@EtHaN198718]

Feynman comes to me as underrated in the physics world....does anyone feel this way? I raise him to the heights of Einstein and Newton. He certainly developed a worthy theory, QED; And also had a remarkable way of explaining things and thinking out of the box

[@jonathansturm4163]

He was indeed a great teacher :-)

[@Jack-gn4gl]

He speaks so you understand, even someone who hasn't had an education in physics can understand, that's a talent in itself

[@CeRz]

@@Jack-gn4gl einstein supposedly described it as: If you can't put it or explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough. And this also lead to the relevance and the topic of the video: knowing versus understanding. You can know something, and be bad at explaining it, that implicates that you don't understand it well enough, or perhaps not at all. This is the difference between memorizing and learning. But to learn, you first need to memorize, and when you understand something you don't need to memorize it at all! Peculiar and mindboggling! Some would call this a paradox, because it sounds simple but it's absolutely not trivial for most people.

[@stevehines7520]

The observation of movement without defining the things moving! beautiful!

[@eruetifoster5162]

Thanks for the upload it is very thought provoking.

[@fun2badult]

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough - Albert Einstein

[@Ad-wz5bu]

+Astro Physics "Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize." Feynman

[@majahmed4059]

+Astro Physics there is nothing to understand no matter how much you try to explain case there is nothing

[@NuisanceMan]

+Astro Physics I would like to see Einstein's simple explanation of the mathematics that underlies General Relativity.

[@majahmed4059]

+Michael Lubin ask Einstine for that it is not what they say...! its how you understand what they say... to see the meaning inside the meaning ...!

[@Cheradanine]

+Astro Physics Not everything can be simplified to the level where everyone can understand it. Some principles simply cannot be simplified to that level without losing the meaning - "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you".

[@historicwine1283]

This sounds sort of similar to Noam Chomsky's criticism of the application of statistical methods in linguistics: statistical models of language learning might approximate the data reasonably well, but they don't actually provide any insight. Science is more than a mere approximation of data.

[@SpectatorAlius]

And yet Google is building whole AI industries on these methods that "don't actually provide any insight"!

[@TallDude404]

@@SpectatorAlius Google is not trying to use statistics to gain new insights into linguistics they are just trying to make the best possible translation algorithm.

[@waleedghazal3021]

@@SpectatorAlius and why are we praising AI industries?

[@DanielHendriks77]

This guy was a real physicist, they don't make them anymore like that.

[@NoConsequenc3]

+Daniel Hendriks Sure they do, just gotta look harder

[@somekid3893]

+Daniel Hendriks Leonard Susskind is one such physicist; he's still around. He even has his own set of lectures (which he calls physics for old people) on stanford's youtube channel.

[@tomrose2086]

Physicists of his calibre are still around, but I know of no-one that shares Feynman's skill of explaining clearly, vividly and memorably.

[@Garrett1240]

Feynman is quite frankly one of the ten greatest physicists of all time. What physicists today can claim to have done even a third of what Feynman did?

[@trismegistus7758]

Nonsense. See Steven Weinberg.

[@dsthorp]

Dr. Feynman, Thank you!

[@ukhalid238]

Whether to worry about "philosophy behind ideas " or not. Its the key to get complete understanding of the ideas rather than plugging numbers without any regard for their inner workings.

[@derrickstorm6976]

Now people think making fancy youtube comments makes them someone who understands

[@physicsismyfiancee...1353]

Truly I can not able to understand what he is trying to say but just realizing that he had found something marvelous that I can't.

[@PHYSICSSIRJEE]

I can just listen to him all day long 😊💓.

[@justinjozokos1699]

I love this combination of physics and philosophy

[@AlaKareem]

I don't understand most of his statements , but I watch every video about Feynman pushed by loving him .

[@vickygautam1181]

Are you weak minded??

[@aguilarrojasoctavio4402]

@@vickygautam1181 "There is some wisdom in knowing your limits".

[@joaoruxa]

@@vickygautam1181 nope Im just not a native english speaker

[@juanpena7436]

How many of us wish we had a professor like Mr Feynman

[@uzairhussain4856]

I can listen to him for hours

[@iribajiacov]

This part is from "The Character of Physical Law -7 -Seeking New Laws" (wiki:)The Character of Physical Law is a series of seven lectures by physicist Richard Feynman concerning the nature of the laws of physics. The talks were delivered by Feynman in 1964 at Cornell University, as part of the Messenger Lectures series. The BBC recorded the 7 lectures. Their text was published by the BBC in 1965 in a book by the same name.[1] The lectures covered the following topics: The law of gravitation, an example of physical law The relation of mathematics and physics The great conservation principles Symmetry in physical law The distinction of past and future Probability and uncertainty - the quantum mechanical view of nature Seeking new laws

[@thegreathawk2244]

His accent makes it feel like something really funny and slapstick is about to happen at any moment.

[@alexreg]

This is very evocative of what one calls a 'super-empirical virtue' in philosophy of science, i.e. a 'virtue' of a theory that has nothing to do with its empirical (predictive) success. But the way Feynman elucidates this important idea in such an intuitive way, relating it to more pragmatic concerns, is as usual second to none!

[@sucersdungeon]

Bro that guy is so fast, fluent and elegant in his communication.

[@kalebboshoff1159]

Man, nobody told me Tom Hanks was a scientist.

[@flywriterinkgirl1974]

love him

[@CosmologicallyYours]

Astonishingly simple presentation with profoundly deep understandings. Essentially he is calling our attention to the intimate connection between Geometry and Mathematics. For indeed there is a Cosmic Geometry of the Universe as a Whole -- and -- the quantum-scale geometry of spacetime branes interacting with wavicles (the double-twisted wave-functions) which are the underlying cause of what "particle physicists" THINK are "particles" --- most of the time they are pure-momentum (waves) and incrementally manifest as a stream of Planck-particles (each Planck particle leaves a dent in spacetime = (Planck mass)(PlanckTime) = (hBar/c^2) = 1.173369x10^-51 [kg s]. This [kilogram second] quantity is thus quantized & invariant.). For any particle "x" the mass of the particle being m_x, its energy is m_x*c^2, divide that by hBar yields, ω-frequency of that particle-type. Thus the mass of any particle-type is simply the quantized manifestation of the 1.173369x10^-51 [kilogram seconds] at this omega-frequency. This accounts for 100% of the particles-mass & more importantly, it leaves a holographic dent in time which accounts for the amount of quantum-gravity that then spreads forth in the complex-domain of the ever-expanding event horizon of the universe -- merging with neighboring wavicles dents -- resulting in a curvature of space centered around the center of mass of the local massive object. I'd leave a link to the whole model, but "they" consistently delete comments with such links.

[@leeamraa]

Speechless!!! Never perceived it this way.

[@valor36az]

The best explanation on why we need to have different theories for the same problems and before anyone says it.....no, that does not include imaginary friends.

[@frankytoad12]

People underestimate the importance of philosophy in science all too often. Science, math, and philosophy are all independent wonders.

[@xj-vn4eo]

And yet they are interconnected. Thus we don't want to get too lost in one aspect overlooking other tightly connected bits.

[@Ch1nGoLO]

No te la puedo creer! Como no vi esto antes! The best explanation i've heard off

[@waynekozak1462]

How is it possible that nobody thought to make a movie about his life starring Art Carney? Can I really be the ONLY one that has noticed that they have the same accent, they look the same, they have the same movements, I believe they even have a shared sense of humour! PLUS Carney was a brilliant actor he could have played the part magnificently!!

[@LegoEddy]

"Yes, but how accurate can you predict eclipses?" "Well, I haven't developed the thing so far" "But we can calculate eclipses more accurately than you can with your model" Feynman just roasted half the machine learning community.

[@franciscodanieldiazgonzale2096]

Half?

[@fpking7531]

This speaks to the nature of ChatGPT which outputs impressively accurate calculations but generates no new ideas about anything.

[@javiergonzales8487]

IMPRESSIVE TOPIC-ANALYSIS, Feynman is always DEEP ! SO TALENTED !

[@davidsiatatgaming]

if i could travel in time for sure i willl be there to listen to one of his lectures...

[@TotalSinging]

Richard Feynman is the smart version of Ed Norton from The Honeymooners. Once you hear it, you can't unhear it.

[@WestOfEarth]

Another simple example in this regard is matrix multiplication. Super easy to memorize the formulas for matrix multiplication. But actually understanding what is happening behind the math is on another level.

[@bichukrishnan8984]

I am re-learning algebra, and this stuff is supertough to understand but easy to do. I suggest Gilbert Strang lecture videos for learning matrices.

[@MrMaskYT]

Best teacher i never had

[@RahulSrivastav844]

What a great man he was!!

[@IdkaCoolusername]

I had a psychology professor who would drill these very concepts into our heads. I have an example when Feynman is talking about when he says how two theories may seem different but are actually the same in terms of consequences. Consider two very popular theories: A) Darwin's theory of evolution and B) Skinner's theory of operant conditioning. At face value, these theories are talking about completely different things but are really the same. Darwin's theory of evolution wants to explain the reason that we observe variability in different beak types is a result of the environment acting upon an organism. Skinner's theory of operant conditioning is talking about, well, behaviors--which are not bird's beaks. But really Skinner's theory holds the same fundamental principles to that of Darwin's theory. That is, Skinner's theory is still talking about how the environment is acting upon an organism to produce a change of some sort--in this case, behaviors. It's the same philosophical idea but applied differently under different pretenses to explain different things. And I think that Feynman is really trying to convey that while mathematics is important in explaining the world, we shouldn't reject the philosophical basis simply because in today's world it's not considered "scientific." And he does give a great example of this when he talks about the Mayans. Like, imagine if you were a kid thousands of years ago and someone proposed to you that the moon is a giant floating rock in the vast nothingness orbiting us. It would be considered impossible. But if such an idea were to exist, it would be considered fiction during the Mayan period, or in today's terms "philosophical."

[@loveormoney786]

IdkaCoolusername Ultimately our understanding of the universe will always be limited. Especially on an individual basis. Scientists have and will always feel humbled. Quite simply patience in terms of one’s own life and that of the timespan of earth’s history is hard to grasp. At times it’s better to take a deep breath and marvel at its majesty not to reign it in with understanding.

[@ahmadisrar9446]

The analogy of change in behaviour or structure as a result of the environment does not apply here, but two different models producing the same consequence does.that's how I understand this. this spirit of variance in understanding is exactly Feynman.

[@Name-ps9fx]

This concept of "keeping several theories which all produce the same effect" is something I had noticed in my work. I used to train paratransit (the "short bus") drivers, and when it came to tying down wheelchairs, they'd tell me that they had been shown 4 different ways from 4 different trainers. Most of these ways were sequential, but some trainers would leave out the "why". When I heard about the trainees' confusion I'd ask, "Do all the methods actually secure the w/c safely?" Of course the answer was yes...that's when I said that is the point, not the sequence. Each trainer uses his/her method developed over time, and as long as there are at least 4 tiedowns going in opposing directions and there's a seatbelt, you're good to go. Just humor the trainer as s/he says "This is THE best way..." Trainers sometimes have delicate egos, as do some scientists.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thank goodness people have the ability to learn different paths in identical vehicles.

[@LanceStephenson215]

Damn this explains a lot we're all basically crazy ASF and don't know we're not even controlling our own thinking, philosophy is thinking but you have to be taught how to think.

[@tyrracapeta]

Happy Birthday, Richard Feynman!!

[@alexandermorley2640]

If someone can upload the Spanish subtitles of this incredible teacher, I would be infinitely grateful! Thank you!

[@ForeverPhenom]

I think there is auto translate feature in youtube video play

[@davidkatuin4527]

It's inspiring , I definitely have different ideas on preexisting theories.

[@johnaugsburger6192]

Thanks, nice way to connect knowing and understanding.

[@skirmantas99]

Awesome video, love the title, really challenged me to get the most out of the video. Well played sir, have a nice day.

[@WJRHalyn-jw2ho]

Excellent analogy on the differences and downfalls of knowing the basics versus comprehending the underlying reality.