Feynman’s Razor
defenderofthebasic.substack.com
Feynman’s Razor
1–10 of 138 posts
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#2That isn't a razor...
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#3Feynman confused pedagogical skill with expertise in a given field. He insisted that experts could explain things. No, that's what a teacher does. Feynman was good at both and apparently had no one to challenge him on his claim that they were the same.
It's possible to be a great teacher without being an expert on given subject matter. And it's possible to have the most expertise but be inscrutable.
In the case of this quote, Feynman wasn't talking about expertise at all, but about explaining a thing with enough relevant details to be understood. Without those, a layman would not understand either.
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#4That isn't a razor...
nods to Crocodile Dundee . . .
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#5That isn't a razor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor
> In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions.
I'd say maybe the rule here allows one to eliminate the useless parts of an explanation, thus simplifying the process of coming up with explanations for complicated things.
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#6I agree this is true if your goal is to inform. If, however, your goal is to increase clicks, decrease support tickets, and get engagement, I'd be surprised if being technically descriptive and accurate is better than dumbing it down to the point of inaccuracy.
None of that is to say that I agree with the goal of engagement over conveying information.
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#7Feynman confused pedagogical skill with expertise in a given field. He insisted that experts could explain things. No, that's what a teacher does. Feynman was good at both and apparently had no one to challenge him on his claim that they were the same. It's possible to be a great teacher without being an expert on given subject matter. And it's possible to have the most expertise but be inscrutable. In the case of th…
Maybe. I think Feynman had a point.
From my experience “experts” who are unable to explain well typically have an incomplete understanding.
Language and knowledge are linked to a degree.
Personally I have had subject I thought I was an expert an and when I went to explain them I realized the shortcomings of my understanding. Later when I was truly an expert my ability to explain them improved.
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#8Funny thing is I think this about Feynman’s own writing for “the layperson”.
I think things like Feynman’s “little arrows” descriptions in QED only muddied and added to the mystique and mysticism of the physics he loved.
Which is interesting because his written lectures[1], though, in their breadth and complexity require effort, seem as if they are intended for experts while being approachable to ”the layperson“.
My only real complaint about those lectures is that even when I understood I rarely felt I had actionable tools for that new knowledge.
The best descriptions of physics I feel that can sufficiently inform “the layperson” are ones that implements the physics in code[2], or through numerical methods.
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#9Feynman confused pedagogical skill with expertise in a given field. He insisted that experts could explain things. No, that's what a teacher does. Feynman was good at both and apparently had no one to challenge him on his claim that they were the same. It's possible to be a great teacher without being an expert on given subject matter. And it's possible to have the most expertise but be inscrutable. In the case of th…
Feynman was not a great teacher. Lots of people love his lectures now. But they're not getting graded on it.
Actual students were considerably more mixed. Obviously individuals vary so if I post how most of his students were totally lost in class, they'll post how one student went on to win a Nobel prize and say gotcha.
Re: Feynman’s Razor
#10That isn't a razor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor > In philosophy, a razor is a principle or rule of thumb that allows one to eliminate ("shave off") unlikely explanations for a phenomenon, or avoid unnecessary actions. I'd say maybe the rule here allows one to eliminate the useless parts of an explanation, thus simplifying the process of coming up with explanations for complicated things.
I'd say it is too reactive to be a razor as opposed to a rule that would prevent dumbing it down too far to begin with.