I think there's nuance to be had here. The field of evolutionary genetics is in the process of finding that the exact mechanism of evolution is slightly different than was thought, specifically that null mutations/slightly deleterious mutations have a different evolutionary impact than was previously assumed. So in that sense, the science of how evolution works is never fully settled. However, if a creationist says "science is never settled" to try to argue against the idea of evolution even existing, then they're not arguing in good faith. The idea that evolution exists as a phenomenon is as close to "settled science" as we can get, even if the exact process of modeling it is always subject to change. Similar concept holds for round earth, anthropogenic contribution to climate change, germ theory, plate tectonics, gravity, etc. We're always refining the understanding of the mechanism but the base phenomenon can still be taken as fact in these cases. The video uses the oil drop experiment to show how the exact constants changed with evidence, but the idea of electrons existing is a feature of essentially every model we use.
@@paulgaskins7713Feynman’s point is not that science an not be settled, but that integrity is required to settle science. To answer your question, if you know how science is done, you cn feel pretty good about it.
When the BBC did a special on Dr Feynman they showed a clip of him teaching. The students were asking him various questions which led to him making the following statement, "In science you only ever know if you're wrong!" He said it with vehemence and absolute seriousness but the entire class burst out laughing. "Surely you must be joking Dr Feynman!"
It seems to me that a lot of people miss the point of what made people like Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell so awesome. They ape their words, and sometimes even show video footage of them, as if that's an argument against the other tribe. They were great because of their methods of rationality, not because of their opinions. In fact I'd say it's kind of dangerous to copy their opinions, because even they were human and products of their time. For example, as one of the other comments here said, cargo cults turned out to be a myth. Obviously it's "unfair" in a sense to "judge" Feynman based on that, because he's human and not a time-traveller. But that's precisely why we need to focus on his rationality, not necessarily the fruits of his rationality. Modern-day popular scientists aren't fooled by the rhetorical tactics being used in political debates today, even by Richard Feynman's fanboys.
Cargo cult religion Written By: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Cargo cult, any of the religious movements chiefly, but not solely, in Melanesia that exhibit belief in the imminence of a new age of blessing, to be initiated by the arrival of a special “cargo” of goods from supernatural sources-based on the observation by local residents of the delivery of supplies to colonial officials. www.britannica.com/topic/cargo-cult
I love Richard Feynman and have followed his advice since I was much younger. I am now around 60. I haven't always been liked for being honest though. I told one company I worked for after they asked me to assess a project for them, that they were wasting 50 K on a project that could be achieved for 3 K better using a microwave link and why. Well that didn't go well, because the people I was working with had already made plans to spend 50 K on their project, and I was being disruptive, rather than just giving it a rubber stamp. They spent the 50 K. Their system worked okay but it is now obsolete and they will spend more now having chosen their way, since that's the method they chose to employ. People needed to defend their incompetent descion rather than save the company money. I have no regrets though, since I would prefer to give an honest opinion over being a mindless "yes man"...
Feynman is one of my heroes and, If I'm being honest, you are too. I learned so much from your vids. Thanks a million for posting everything that you post :).
Wow. I'm not a scientist but I got that, and I'd never thought of it like that before. I will do my best to keep what Feynman said in mind, and to reserve some of his work at my local library.
Wow - I haven't seen your work in many years. I had forgotten the fantastic quality of your voice and delivery. But really, I stopped by to mention your hyperlink is out of date.
Young´s experiment may never been referred to in other research, but to receive a compliment like "A-NUMBER-ONE experiment" from Richard Feynman is worth 1000 citations!
Excellent video. I am currently taking a course in The Rise of Modern Science, and I am preparing a discussion today in regard to the various forms of the scientific method. I plan to use this video as one perspective; furthermore, my final research report will be on the concept of Parapsychology. Thumbs up and Faved.
@Schneboll - Good point. Another problem is that in a very large region of the country (much of the Bible Belt), high school subject teachers are not required to have any training whatsoever in the subjects they teach. Anyone with a bachelor's can get a job teaching biology, for example.
This lecture should be mandatory reading/listening for anyone going into a STEM field. The talk is directed at "cargo cult science", but let's face it: a portion of the population in those circles don't give a damn about scientific rigor. But EVERY scientist, mathematician, teacher, and inventor/engineer seeks only truth. To them this warning about not fooling ourselves is a moral imperative.
I love this video! It is a sad truth that when doing scientific experiments it is so difficult to control for all the variables. That is why there is often so much value in repeating old experiments. After all it isn't really good science until everyone gets the same result ever time and we know why. Every first year science student (and well any scientist) should view this video as an explanation, or refresher on scientific experimentation.
Here's how this conversation usually goes: 1. I ask why the world's research community is unconvinced by your evidence; why there's an inverse relationship between scientific knowledge and belief in this topic. 2. You invoke a vast global conspiracy involving all the world's governments collaborating to suppress data. 3. I respond that absence of evidence is not evidence of hidden conspiracies. 4. You call me a 'sheeple' and storm off. Is that about right?
@EyeLean5280 Im a pupil (in England not America though) and the thing that holds me back from doing the best I can do is just laziness. I'm used to things being easy and when things get hard (school work, exams etc) I tend to give up a lot sooner and be happier with lower grades. It generally isn't the methods that my teachers use, just the change in attitude that I have from older people had in school (or what they said they were like when they were younger).
Would love to have heard Feynman do this but well read, mate. Feynman was right. An important difference between science and pseudo-science is a commitment to honest inquiry.
I live on a small island with a lot of Cargo Cult Psyience going on.Fake spiritualism, the new physics(?), astrology, wanna be Natives, psychedelics and on. I haven't been paying much attention lately but, is there some new physics out that I missed? I mentioned Richard Feynman to an older lady that I know and she say - I love RF!, and a minute later she's talking to me about astrology.She is a great lady so I don't challenge her on much but most everyone else is fair game. This place is nutty but hear I am.Juat don't drink the Kool aid! Thanks to guys like Richard I won't! That's my rant! (;
"Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty,but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate" Richard P Feynman
At 9:58 the speaker repeats a typo (or error) from the original speech. The transcripts omit the word "not" where it belongs: "That's NOT why the planes don't land, but they don't land." Somehow, that error has been included in every written transcript of the speech that I've ever seen ... and this speaker repeats it faithfully. But it's not correct. I would love to see that corrected, because otherwise this is a perfect speech on the topic.
RE- we should publish both kinds of results. Very true, but even a scientist with integrity may not be able to get their 'null' through peer review. In fact, integrity of peer review (coupled with the necessity of a journal to reject large numbers of submissions) is more biased against this. There are some open journals popping up to allow this, but publishing there often will get one a bad rep! Anyhow, this video, although old, made my Sunday morning. Thank you for contributing it.
...These make a good comparison because both authors are writing about Ayn Rand , both have a similar take on her and her work and both pieces are funny. The difference in quality between these two articles cannot be missed. The depth and breadth of Chambers's education and experience are immediately apparent and masterfully conveyed. PJ O'Rourke's piece, while clever and amusing, doesn't even approach the quality of Chambers's.
@ChristianDefence Cargo cult science is defined by methodology and philosophy, not by topic. It is the difference between SETI and UFology. SETI is self-critical, falsifying, and guards itself against self-deception or wishful thinking. UFO proponents are looking to confirm, to indulge, to support their own pet theory. "Post-normal science" (using Kuhn's term) may be discovered by serendipity, but must undergo the usual scientific testing and falsification to be accepted.
Cowley and Byrne "Chess Masters’ Hypothesis Testing" ... turns out one thing that separates master players from novices is that the masters "think like scientists" trying to "falsify" their moves. They spend a lot more time trying to consider what the opponent will do. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." -- R.F.
(cont) In our research we found that landscape ecology can highly discriminate different biofilm architectures at various spatial scales and between various substrata. As a graduate student I aim to use a landscape ecology approach, along with molecular biology, to discover novel genes involved in biofilm formation. The two combined may give us more info than either one could alone. My PI and I have run up against opposition from the molecular biology crowd already, so I expect that to continue.
I just read a book called "Bad Science' and not publishing negative results is a huge problem in science. The book was kind of depressing. I thought it would be about, I don't know parapsychology or something but it was about science. Real science. And how it fails due to these little inconsistencies. Feynman saw it all those years ago.
It's an issue I deal with in daily life and not just in the scientific world. The "It's good enough" belief even after the action fails. "I did it right, so it was nothing I did wrong."
This is a very interesting essay; thanks for sharing it. I can relate to its sentiment from my own undergraduate research experience. I study biofilm architecture using a landscape ecology approach. Landscape ecology is the study of the interaction between spatial pattern and heterogeneity of a landscape and the ecological processes between and within these patterns. Biofilms, in situ, are highly dynamic communities that exist as larger microbial networks (cont)..
I've found that knowing too much about too many different topics just sets people ablaze. When they try to tell u a story you know is wrong and you have to point it out to them because you KNOW it's wrong...it just frustrates the other person. They'll claim your arrogant, cocky or a know it all, or just claim that science isn't the truth. People have no respect for rationality. People only respect what they feel emotionaly. So now I'm just making my science feel convincing without details
@zEropoint68 It's not necessarily that those who are against tenure disagree with that motive for tenure. Part of it is the need for some form of check against quacks and cranks (even if they just show up as such after tenure), but that tends to be hard to manage without a strict definition of quack and crank, which defeats the entire purpose...
One thing I think most laypeople don't get about real scientists is that being wrong is sometimes even more interesting and fruitful than being right. For most people, being wrong is considered a negative, where for a scientist it indicates a new avenue for research and a corresponding paradigm shift in how the phenomenon under study is understood. Unfortunately, I don't know how to teach that attitude except by experience. Perhaps that should be a new focus for science education?
I am going to take this opportunity to mention Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) which does reduce the rate of re-offense. A simple idea - surrounding an offender by community volunteers to whom he or she is accountable and who offer their support to the offender.
(cont) The common methodology in microbiology in the study of biofilms is to use molecular biological assays, and reverse genetics, to study biofilms in vitro. Studying biofilms solely from this approach may steer a researcher into missing other genes that don't necessarily affect biofilm biovolume between a wild type and a mutant, but may greatly influence biofilm architecture and hence, function.
@mattghtpa The truly skeptical position, the one I learned from Feynman and Sagan and Asimov and others, is that we do not commit to a position until adequate evidence has been produced. When I say I am skeptical that aliens are visiting Earth, it is in that spirit. You don't have sufficient evidence to convince me, and I distrust arguments advanced without sufficient physical evidence. Convincing skeptics of "extraordinary claims" requires "extraordinary evidence".
@leo16mmiv - Very sweet of you. It's interesting to note that several people on this thread pointed out my mistake and not one of them used the word "moron." For UA-cam, C0nc0rdance clearly attracts a quality audience.
A related book, "How We Know What Isn't So" by Thomas Gilovich talks about how scientists have figured out how to not be fooled. It seems that the hard sciences (chemistry, physics) don't teach it as well as the soft sciences (psychology). If you're more likely to be fooled they teach how to avoid being fooled even more. It is a shame, this should be taught in high school to everyone.
@deriamis The problem is ego... Any hypothesis you develop is like an attempted solution to a puzzle. Our egos want to think we got it right, and while even though an experimental result that tells us we were wrong teaches us something, it tells us we were wrong. The key is to lose the ego, to strive for the learning we get from the result, rather than the confirmation that we solved the puzzle. This is hard to do.
@Keinlicht - You are probably right about the media influence. Intellectually-minded kids have always sort of gone of on their own paths to supplement what they get in school. But with video games and other media distractions, they must be putting far less time into reading than they once did.
@mattghtpa I'm not interested in the UFO/ET issue, but I want to make sure you understand my love of Sagan and the like. I don't revere them, and their opinions carry no weight with me. I don't drink Sanka because Asimov loved it. I only value their work, their ability to inspire, and the lives they led. Even Einstein was wrong about a lot of things. But the theory of general relativity isn't. I hope you see the difference.
@shraka Agreed, but when backs are to the wall and results matter, the salesman steps back into the shadows and talent gets its chance. In a time of security, the PR man becomes all powerful (witness the current British Prime Minister). A Feynman setting out today would find it tough, which might explain why innovation in science is plummeting.
@EyeLean5280 These are excellent questions =) I'd also like to see if @C0nc0rdance will do a video in the future about this. However, from what I understand, this is from an address which Richard Feynman gave in 1974.
@websnarf Not necessarily, because the "soft sciences" (sociology, psychology, etc...) can be done in a way that they aren't cargo-cult science, and the "hard sciences" (physics, chemistry, etc...) can be done in a way that is cargo-cult science.
Likewise for parapsychology or intelligent design creationism. They go through the motions of science: p-values, pseudopublications, experiments; but they never adhere to the true spirit of science: ruthless self-criticism, skepticism, and a willingness to follow evidence objectively, to risk disproving their own theory. The analogy to the cargo cults of the S Pacific is very apt. They set up the labs, but the science never comes, and it never will.
Negative results are just as guiding as the positive ones. We just tend to pay attention to the positive ones because, usually, they are the smoking gun. Never mind all the other negative results that allowed us to come to a proper deduction. Feynman points out something significant, if we don't include the negative results, we are not coming to a proper deduction, we are running wildly.
@sexifencer - In terms of reading specifically, I like to lean very heavily on phonics. I like to teach the proper spelling of words pretty early on. If a child is having trouble, I tend to drill him or her. (On the other hand, I heartily disagree with teaching reading in kindergarten - there are too many kids who are simply not ready. I prefer the old standard of beginning about midway through first grade.)
This is why I like Neil deGrasse Tyson much more than Michio Kaku. Neil tends to let you know, either bluntly or through the careful choosing of words, that he's stepping outside of his field of expertise. He can speculate, and igniting the imagination, but always has that clear distinction between what's known and what might be. Kaku on the other hand simply blathers on about shit he has no qualifications to speak to as if they were set in stone. That certainty is probably why he's more popular
Excellent articulation of how little facts are really facts. And what can be, considering the vast variety of possibilities existing? Fluidity, is King. Thanks :]s
@TheJoeOption the 50 minute horizon programme of the same name is on my channel and a complete Feynman playlist the guy is a true genius and an inspiration to watch
It's got to be an error in the typed transcript that has lasted through every printed version that I've ever seen. I'm sure that what is meant - the only thing that can be meant by that sentence in the sense of this speech - is to add the word "not": "That's not why they don't land, but the planes don't land."
@buugiman78 I never said people couldn't also be completely average. However, I was using the term "scientist" in a manner perhaps susceptible to being called a "no true scotsman" type of description; the descriptor I use for a person who does research but do not or cannot afford themselves a strict ethic of absolute and profuse honesty is "researcher." Call me elitist, but a scientist has a responsibility to a sense of professional ethics in order to to truthfully be named one.
@Gigano1986 This mechanism seems to work very well for string theory. *Authority* is the keyword, they are mere humans, not, they have authority over others.
@@alfredomulleretxeberria4239 of course, but as Karl Popper said in his “Conjectures and Refutations”, there was actually a shift in the 1940s or so. Back in the day, we knew that there was always a weird group that thought ghosts talked to them etc.. And This group was known to use verbal tricks. So, we always knew there’s religious zealots and conmen new ager charlatan types using the tricks.. but at some point a financier or a sub-prime mortgage agent could be found slowly adopting these same tricks despite their roots in dubious religion & new-age circles. Because of that shift, people didn’t expect these tricks in a new area. Simple. For another example outside Feynman or Popper, check Cialdini. He calls this new wave “compliance practitioners.” Fascinating and disturbing.
When a "science guy" says something like "the science is settled," send him here for a refresher.
I think there's nuance to be had here. The field of evolutionary genetics is in the process of finding that the exact mechanism of evolution is slightly different than was thought, specifically that null mutations/slightly deleterious mutations have a different evolutionary impact than was previously assumed. So in that sense, the science of how evolution works is never fully settled.
However, if a creationist says "science is never settled" to try to argue against the idea of evolution even existing, then they're not arguing in good faith. The idea that evolution exists as a phenomenon is as close to "settled science" as we can get, even if the exact process of modeling it is always subject to change.
Similar concept holds for round earth, anthropogenic contribution to climate change, germ theory, plate tectonics, gravity, etc. We're always refining the understanding of the mechanism but the base phenomenon can still be taken as fact in these cases. The video uses the oil drop experiment to show how the exact constants changed with evidence, but the idea of electrons existing is a feature of essentially every model we use.
Holy shit.
How do you feel now.
Lots of science goin on huh?
How did you like your government telling you the science is settled?
@@paulgaskins7713Feynman’s point is not that science an not be settled, but that integrity is required to settle science. To answer your question, if you know how science is done, you cn feel pretty good about it.
The scientists who settled the science did the things that Feynman is outlining here. You weren’t listening.
Feynman was always right on the money!
Yep. Pure brilliance.
RP Feynman is sorely missed today, but he did not leave us without his great insights!
"If you build it they will come" -Cargo Cult
"If you book them, they will come" -wayne's world 2
When the BBC did a special on Dr Feynman they showed a clip of him teaching. The students were asking him various questions which led to him making the following statement, "In science you only ever know if you're wrong!" He said it with vehemence and absolute seriousness but the entire class burst out laughing. "Surely you must be joking Dr Feynman!"
Money, Power, and Influence, they are ever present forces that attempt to bend scientific principles. Thank you R. Feyman.
Thanks for reading this. Wouldn't it have been great to have a recording in Feynman's own voice. But hey I'll take this!
I stood next to Uri Geller when he bent a spoon.
Trickery of course, but he was good at it.
It seems to me that a lot of people miss the point of what made people like Richard Feynman and Bertrand Russell so awesome. They ape their words, and sometimes even show video footage of them, as if that's an argument against the other tribe. They were great because of their methods of rationality, not because of their opinions. In fact I'd say it's kind of dangerous to copy their opinions, because even they were human and products of their time. For example, as one of the other comments here said, cargo cults turned out to be a myth. Obviously it's "unfair" in a sense to "judge" Feynman based on that, because he's human and not a time-traveller. But that's precisely why we need to focus on his rationality, not necessarily the fruits of his rationality. Modern-day popular scientists aren't fooled by the rhetorical tactics being used in political debates today, even by Richard Feynman's fanboys.
Cargo cult
religion
Written By:
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Cargo cult, any of the religious movements chiefly, but not solely, in Melanesia that exhibit belief in the imminence of a new age of blessing, to be initiated by the arrival of a special “cargo” of goods from supernatural sources-based on the observation by local residents of the delivery of supplies to colonial officials. www.britannica.com/topic/cargo-cult
Always liked Dr Feynman....he had a real way with words that we seem to be lacking these days....
I love Richard Feynman and have followed his advice since I was much younger. I am now around 60. I haven't always been liked for being honest though.
I told one company I worked for after they asked me to assess a project for them, that they were wasting 50 K on a project that could be achieved for 3 K better using a microwave link and why. Well that didn't go well, because the people I was working with had already made plans to spend 50 K on their project, and I was being disruptive, rather than just giving it a rubber stamp.
They spent the 50 K. Their system worked okay but it is now obsolete and they will spend more now having chosen their way, since that's the method they chose to employ. People needed to defend their incompetent descion rather than save the company money. I have no regrets though, since I would prefer to give an honest opinion over being a mindless "yes man"...
Another phenomenal video explaining what is the true nature of science and scientific integrity. Bravo!
Feynman is one of my heroes and, If I'm being honest, you are too. I learned so much from your vids. Thanks a million for posting everything that you post :).
Wow. I'm not a scientist but I got that, and I'd never thought of it like that before.
I will do my best to keep what Feynman said in mind, and to reserve some of his work at my local library.
Wow - I haven't seen your work in many years. I had forgotten the fantastic quality of your voice and delivery. But really, I stopped by to mention your hyperlink is out of date.
Young´s experiment may never been referred to in other research, but to receive a compliment like "A-NUMBER-ONE experiment" from Richard Feynman is worth 1000 citations!
I see we can learn a lot from Dr. Feynman, even outside of physics.
This was a fascinating, very well conducted video. I have tremendous appreciation for what you do.
How I miss Prof Feynman, a great scientist and a wonderful human being.
Love Feynman. One of my favorite books is "Surly you're Joking Mr. Feynman"
I wish it was in Feynman's knowledgeable voice... He knew what he was talking about and that would vibrate in every word he speaks...
Excellent video. I am currently taking a course in The Rise of Modern Science, and I am preparing a discussion today in regard to the various forms of the scientific method. I plan to use this video as one perspective; furthermore, my final research report will be on the concept of Parapsychology. Thumbs up and Faved.
@Schneboll - Good point. Another problem is that in a very large region of the country (much of the Bible Belt), high school subject teachers are not required to have any training whatsoever in the subjects they teach. Anyone with a bachelor's can get a job teaching biology, for example.
This lecture should be mandatory reading/listening for anyone going into a STEM field. The talk is directed at "cargo cult science", but let's face it: a portion of the population in those circles don't give a damn about scientific rigor. But EVERY scientist, mathematician, teacher, and inventor/engineer seeks only truth. To them this warning about not fooling ourselves is a moral imperative.
Fantastic video as usual. I really hope that when I get a career in science I'm not forced to cut corners.
A beautifully-written speech, beautifully delivered. Favorited :D
His character and roll model helped me through writing my dissertation.
ROLE
The purpose of this video should be a mandatory course for all science degrees.
Feynman is my hero... The way he thinks and talks resonates with how I think. He is why I love science.
I like that you showed one of Feynman's drawings. He took up sketching at forty-five, and showed a considerable latent talent.
Thank you for bringing this up! One of the most important lectures if not the most important! ahhh... and yes, he surely would ;)
Extremely good video, thank you
I love this video! It is a sad truth that when doing scientific experiments it is so difficult to control for all the variables. That is why there is often so much value in repeating old experiments. After all it isn't really good science until everyone gets the same result ever time and we know why.
Every first year science student (and well any scientist) should view this video as an explanation, or refresher on scientific experimentation.
Here's how this conversation usually goes:
1. I ask why the world's research community is unconvinced by your evidence; why there's an inverse relationship between scientific knowledge and belief in this topic.
2. You invoke a vast global conspiracy involving all the world's governments collaborating to suppress data.
3. I respond that absence of evidence is not evidence of hidden conspiracies.
4. You call me a 'sheeple' and storm off.
Is that about right?
Is this a rant about global warming? I'm fairly sure Feynman would have been an alarmist skeptic.
yep, that's on point, even 6 years after
How could anyone dislike this? Let alone two..
Feynman was such an amazing guy. I wish he were still with us.
For a minute there I thought you were saying you were a LOT older than you sound. Grate video by the way.
Feynman did so much greatness. It was an honour to listen to this. (As strange as that may sound)
@EyeLean5280 Im a pupil (in England not America though) and the thing that holds me back from doing the best I can do is just laziness. I'm used to things being easy and when things get hard (school work, exams etc) I tend to give up a lot sooner and be happier with lower grades. It generally isn't the methods that my teachers use, just the change in attitude that I have from older people had in school (or what they said they were like when they were younger).
14:42 Rutherford was "wasting time" with his gold foil experiment, he already thought he knew the result
This vid needs to be shown in science classes
Would love to have heard Feynman do this but well read, mate.
Feynman was right. An important difference between science and pseudo-science is a commitment to honest inquiry.
I live on a small island with a lot of Cargo Cult Psyience going on.Fake spiritualism, the new physics(?), astrology, wanna be Natives, psychedelics and on.
I haven't been paying much attention lately but, is there some new physics out that I missed?
I mentioned Richard Feynman to an older lady that I know and she say - I love RF!, and a minute later she's talking to me about astrology.She is a great lady so I don't challenge her on much but most everyone else is fair game.
This place is nutty but hear I am.Juat don't drink the Kool aid! Thanks to guys like Richard I won't!
That's my rant! (;
"Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty,but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate" Richard P Feynman
At 9:58 the speaker repeats a typo (or error) from the original speech. The transcripts omit the word "not" where it belongs: "That's NOT why the planes don't land, but they don't land." Somehow, that error has been included in every written transcript of the speech that I've ever seen ... and this speaker repeats it faithfully. But it's not correct. I would love to see that corrected, because otherwise this is a perfect speech on the topic.
RE- we should publish both kinds of results. Very true, but even a scientist with integrity may not be able to get their 'null' through peer review. In fact, integrity of peer review (coupled with the necessity of a journal to reject large numbers of submissions) is more biased against this. There are some open journals popping up to allow this, but publishing there often will get one a bad rep! Anyhow, this video, although old, made my Sunday morning. Thank you for contributing it.
Nice piece of work. It wont be hard to remember. I've always gotten the impression "repeatable" was there for a reason.
...These make a good comparison because both authors are writing about Ayn Rand , both have a similar take on her and her work and both pieces are funny.
The difference in quality between these two articles cannot be missed. The depth and breadth of Chambers's education and experience are immediately apparent and masterfully conveyed. PJ O'Rourke's piece, while clever and amusing, doesn't even approach the quality of Chambers's.
skeptical is the opposite of gullible. I really enjoyed this clip :-)
Fans of Feynman will enjoy the education writings of the Underground Grammarian, Richard Mitchell. All now free online.
@ChristianDefence
Cargo cult science is defined by methodology and philosophy, not by topic. It is the difference between SETI and UFology. SETI is self-critical, falsifying, and guards itself against self-deception or wishful thinking. UFO proponents are looking to confirm, to indulge, to support their own pet theory.
"Post-normal science" (using Kuhn's term) may be discovered by serendipity, but must undergo the usual scientific testing and falsification to be accepted.
17:36 is the greatest compliment a scientist could hope for! It´s worth a thousand citations in peer reviewed papers!
Cowley and Byrne "Chess Masters’ Hypothesis Testing" ... turns out one thing that separates master players from novices is that the masters "think like scientists" trying to "falsify" their moves. They spend a lot more time trying to consider what the opponent will do.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." -- R.F.
(cont) In our research we found that landscape ecology can highly discriminate different biofilm architectures at various spatial scales and between various substrata. As a graduate student I aim to use a landscape ecology approach, along with molecular biology, to discover novel genes involved in biofilm formation. The two combined may give us more info than either one could alone. My PI and I have run up against opposition from the molecular biology crowd already, so I expect that to continue.
I just read a book called "Bad Science' and not publishing negative results is a huge problem in science. The book was kind of depressing. I thought it would be about, I don't know parapsychology or something but it was about science. Real science. And how it fails due to these little inconsistencies. Feynman saw it all those years ago.
How would you distinguish a poorly executed experiment from an incorrect or incomplete hypothesis?
My uncle got me a book by this guy. I think its called "the pleasure of finding things out"
It's an issue I deal with in daily life and not just in the scientific world. The "It's good enough" belief even after the action fails. "I did it right, so it was nothing I did wrong."
This is a very interesting essay; thanks for sharing it. I can relate to its sentiment from my own undergraduate research experience. I study biofilm architecture using a landscape ecology approach. Landscape ecology is the study of the interaction between spatial pattern and heterogeneity of a landscape and the ecological processes between and within these patterns. Biofilms, in situ, are highly dynamic communities that exist as larger microbial networks (cont)..
Well worth listening to, the cargo landed for me.
I've found that knowing too much about too many different topics just sets people ablaze. When they try to tell u a story you know is wrong and you have to point it out to them because you KNOW it's wrong...it just frustrates the other person. They'll claim your arrogant, cocky or a know it all, or just claim that science isn't the truth. People have no respect for rationality. People only respect what they feel emotionaly. So now I'm just making my science feel convincing without details
I remember reading this for my senior seminar in physics
@AlanCFA - Thanks for all that info! I will definitely look it up!
@zEropoint68 It's not necessarily that those who are against tenure disagree with that motive for tenure. Part of it is the need for some form of check against quacks and cranks (even if they just show up as such after tenure), but that tends to be hard to manage without a strict definition of quack and crank, which defeats the entire purpose...
If Feynman had given this talk after 2009 and not talked about economists, I would have questioned his integrity.
One thing I think most laypeople don't get about real scientists is that being wrong is sometimes even more interesting and fruitful than being right. For most people, being wrong is considered a negative, where for a scientist it indicates a new avenue for research and a corresponding paradigm shift in how the phenomenon under study is understood.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to teach that attitude except by experience. Perhaps that should be a new focus for science education?
I am going to take this opportunity to mention Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) which does reduce the rate of re-offense. A simple idea - surrounding an offender by community volunteers to whom he or she is accountable and who offer their support to the offender.
(cont) The common methodology in microbiology in the study of biofilms is to use molecular biological assays, and reverse genetics, to study biofilms in vitro. Studying biofilms solely from this approach may steer a researcher into missing other genes that don't necessarily affect biofilm biovolume between a wild type and a mutant, but may greatly influence biofilm architecture and hence, function.
Dr. Buzz Aldrin spent most of our time together in that photo telling me to stop talking and listen. He was correct. Listen to Prof. Dr. Feynman.
Exactly! The point was entirely integrity. Hes addressing a group of students and future scientists so he used examples they could relate to.
Wonderful video. Thanks for posting.
The path to undefiled wisdom and away from hypocritical self-deceit.
@mattghtpa
The truly skeptical position, the one I learned from Feynman and Sagan and Asimov and others, is that we do not commit to a position until adequate evidence has been produced. When I say I am skeptical that aliens are visiting Earth, it is in that spirit. You don't have sufficient evidence to convince me, and I distrust arguments advanced without sufficient physical evidence.
Convincing skeptics of "extraordinary claims" requires "extraordinary evidence".
@leo16mmiv - Very sweet of you. It's interesting to note that several people on this thread pointed out my mistake and not one of them used the word "moron." For UA-cam, C0nc0rdance clearly attracts a quality audience.
A related book, "How We Know What Isn't So" by Thomas Gilovich talks about how scientists have figured out how to not be fooled. It seems that the hard sciences (chemistry, physics) don't teach it as well as the soft sciences (psychology). If you're more likely to be fooled they teach how to avoid being fooled even more. It is a shame, this should be taught in high school to everyone.
@deriamis The problem is ego... Any hypothesis you develop is like an attempted solution to a puzzle. Our egos want to think we got it right, and while even though an experimental result that tells us we were wrong teaches us something, it tells us we were wrong. The key is to lose the ego, to strive for the learning we get from the result, rather than the confirmation that we solved the puzzle. This is hard to do.
Wish there was a real recording of this talk.
@Keinlicht - You are probably right about the media influence. Intellectually-minded kids have always sort of gone of on their own paths to supplement what they get in school. But with video games and other media distractions, they must be putting far less time into reading than they once did.
@mattghtpa
I'm not interested in the UFO/ET issue, but I want to make sure you understand my love of Sagan and the like. I don't revere them, and their opinions carry no weight with me. I don't drink Sanka because Asimov loved it. I only value their work, their ability to inspire, and the lives they led.
Even Einstein was wrong about a lot of things. But the theory of general relativity isn't. I hope you see the difference.
@shraka Agreed, but when backs are to the wall and results matter, the salesman steps back into the shadows and talent gets its chance. In a time of security, the PR man becomes all powerful (witness the current British Prime Minister). A Feynman setting out today would find it tough, which might explain why innovation in science is plummeting.
This called confirmation-bias which is widespread
@EyeLean5280 These are excellent questions =) I'd also like to see if @C0nc0rdance will do a video in the future about this. However, from what I understand, this is from an address which Richard Feynman gave in 1974.
@websnarf Not necessarily, because the "soft sciences" (sociology, psychology, etc...) can be done in a way that they aren't cargo-cult science, and the "hard sciences" (physics, chemistry, etc...) can be done in a way that is cargo-cult science.
Likewise for parapsychology or intelligent design creationism. They go through the motions of science: p-values, pseudopublications, experiments; but they never adhere to the true spirit of science: ruthless self-criticism, skepticism, and a willingness to follow evidence objectively, to risk disproving their own theory.
The analogy to the cargo cults of the S Pacific is very apt. They set up the labs, but the science never comes, and it never will.
@JammyJim110 - Thank you for your honesty. Is there anything you can think of that might motivate you more?
Negative results are just as guiding as the positive ones. We just tend to pay attention to the positive ones because, usually, they are the smoking gun. Never mind all the other negative results that allowed us to come to a proper deduction. Feynman points out something significant, if we don't include the negative results, we are not coming to a proper deduction, we are running wildly.
If you turn on closed captioning, it gets 99% of what c0n says right... ooh that's good narration
@sexifencer - In terms of reading specifically, I like to lean very heavily on phonics. I like to teach the proper spelling of words pretty early on. If a child is having trouble, I tend to drill him or her. (On the other hand, I heartily disagree with teaching reading in kindergarten - there are too many kids who are simply not ready. I prefer the old standard of beginning about midway through first grade.)
This is why I like Neil deGrasse Tyson much more than Michio Kaku. Neil tends to let you know, either bluntly or through the careful choosing of words, that he's stepping outside of his field of expertise. He can speculate, and igniting the imagination, but always has that clear distinction between what's known and what might be. Kaku on the other hand simply blathers on about shit he has no qualifications to speak to as if they were set in stone. That certainty is probably why he's more popular
@Well, you teacher didn't have much choice if s/he wanted to keep his/her job. Glad to see that you're making your own choices! :)
Excellent articulation of how little facts are really facts. And what can be, considering the vast variety of possibilities existing?
Fluidity, is King.
Thanks :]s
@TheJoeOption the 50 minute horizon programme of the same name is on my channel and a complete Feynman playlist the guy is a true genius and an inspiration to watch
That's why they don't land - but they don't land. Can someone explain what is meant by that?
It's got to be an error in the typed transcript that has lasted through every printed version that I've ever seen. I'm sure that what is meant - the only thing that can be meant by that sentence in the sense of this speech - is to add the word "not": "That's not why they don't land, but the planes don't land."
Rhinoceros horn doesn't help potency? Whatever will they think of next?
Scratch that. We seem to take success for granted as much as we always have.
@buugiman78 I never said people couldn't also be completely average. However, I was using the term "scientist" in a manner perhaps susceptible to being called a "no true scotsman" type of description; the descriptor I use for a person who does research but do not or cannot afford themselves a strict ethic of absolute and profuse honesty is "researcher." Call me elitist, but a scientist has a responsibility to a sense of professional ethics in order to to truthfully be named one.
The text of the commencement address is now available at lockhaven.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
@Gigano1986 This mechanism seems to work very well for string theory.
*Authority* is the keyword, they are mere humans, not, they have authority over others.
Halfway into this Feynman predicts the whole billion dollar business of using statistics to “fool the layman”
Using numbers and fancy-sounding terminology to make beliefs sound reasonable has been around since ancient times with astrology and the four humors.
@@alfredomulleretxeberria4239 of course, but as Karl Popper said in his “Conjectures and Refutations”, there was actually a shift in the 1940s or so. Back in the day, we knew that there was always a weird group that thought ghosts talked to them etc.. And This group was known to use verbal tricks. So, we always knew there’s religious zealots and conmen new ager charlatan types using the tricks.. but at some point a financier or a sub-prime mortgage agent could be found slowly adopting these same tricks despite their roots in dubious religion & new-age circles. Because of that shift, people didn’t expect these tricks in a new area. Simple.
For another example outside Feynman or Popper, check Cialdini. He calls this new wave “compliance practitioners.” Fascinating and disturbing.
That's not Feynman reading it, correct? It doesn't sound like his voice to me...?
you're correct, i don't think the actual commencement was recorded
the thing is....if you've heard enough interviews and presentations he's done, you can kinda hear him in there....
I think this one was in text only... unless you were there and heard him.
This sounds like a reading of the last chapter of "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!". I don't know who the reader is.
pretty sure it's just the video uploader himself
@Valigarmanda1 - I did realize that after posting - thanks.
Feynman brought up some important stuff!