Cargo Cult Science

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Answers

If Feynman were alive today, I'd like to know his take on many things, Global Warming for example. There is so much ideology, so much ego, so much money involved in so many issues (GW is just one example) that I don't know which scientists to trust.

Too many hidden agendas.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2001

Feynman's a clod going over covered ground and badly at that. Works around here cause you're still looking for that evil Doomer mentality out there so you can save us.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Speech was given as per the notes in 1974. Probably after Dr. Feynmann was arrested for playing his bongo drums in a strip joint and before his effort to travel to "Tuva or Bust". (You wouldn't even know where Tuva is. "......From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974 Also in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" is one book you might be able to finish. It is a book about Feynmanns life as one of the greatest Scientists of any century.

CARLOS THE JERK. Richard Feynmann gave the world "Feynmann diagrams" one of the integral parts of the explanation for Quantum. He won a NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS for his many contributions including one of the best College Level "Introduction to Physics" ever written.

It would be perfect for you. Unlike many text books, there are NO "problems" at the end of each chapter.

THAT MEANS, THAT YOU like most of the people in the world.....AS USUAL........COULD READ IT AND NOT UNDERSTAND A DAMN THING, comment on it and not be held responsible for the content in it.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

THE BOTTOM LINE WHICH CARLOS BIRD-BRAIN MISSED :

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001

Something more Carlos the Birdbrain's speed:

LINK FOR BIRD BRAIN

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2001