Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

lhup.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#21

Post by crusso »

Jun8 wrote: post #18
crusso wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your criticisms miss the mark by a long shot. 1. Mixes in? Is your charge that he tried to commit the fallacy of equivocation in some way? I'm not following how discussing the obvious abuse of integrity that Geller demonstrated and then the less-obvious abuse of integrity the psychology student demonstrated detracts from his point that integrity is really important to the usefulness of the Scientific method.…

1. There's a huge difference between the Geller and the psychology student, the former does lack the integrity but you can't talk of "abuse of integrity" for the student, because (i) she was doing things in the prescribed way (unless, of course, you're ready to say almost all psychology departments (and most other humanities, too) are guilty of the same sin, and (ii) even if she did want to do a better experiment, in…

1. I don't understand. Are you saying that Feynman needed to NOT point out a flaw in the psychologist's method because she was doing things in a prescribed way or because doing things with "Scientific integrity" wouldn't have been easy?

> Feynman is beating up on psychology here, I think, because it's not as rigorous as physics.

I don't think the text of the address supports that conclusion. Even he were doing that, it doesn't mean that his argument was unsound. I don't understand the motivation for your ad hominem here, but I note the invalidity of your argument.

3. I don't understand. Does the fact that we have plenty of examples of 180 degree turnarounds in academic performance in the worst school districts in the country not indicate that there are solutions that empirically show a better way to run an education system not put a lie to your claim that this is not a problem that we can apply success-based Scientific-like methods to? I would most humbly suggest that you view the documentary entitled "Waiting for Superman" which documents successful education initiatives in some of the worst school districts in the country that are resisted by teachers' unions and the politicians whom they fund for obvious money and power reasons. Feynman, 40 years ago, had remarkable understanding of the problem that we're still dealing with today.

> As for your tone, why not try to be a little more humble,

I don't understand. Am I supposed to feign ignorance when I thoroughly understand the arguments you attempted to make and spotted why they are invalid? Would dissembling make me humble? I think they would make my rebuttal less clear and needlessly disingenuous... but we can try it your way for this post.

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#22

Post by crusso »

Jun8 wrote: post #19
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is science is all or nothing. If you half ass it your simply wasting time. Perhaps you can't do controlled experiments with people that's fine, give up and go work on something else don't compromise and still call it science. Because your results are meaningless. PS: How much useful information has been gained from human nutritional experimentation over the last 50 years?

I disagree. Take the education reform problem (in the US). A number of solutions have been proposed, which one should we implement, or should we come up with a new one? Are teachers' ratings completely bogus, as some claim, or can they be used to rate them. People want answers, you can't just give up. Not everybody can close shop and work on other, more well-defined problems because these problems need to be solved,…

> Take the education reform problem (in the US).

I think you're completely wrong about education. The science is already there. We have empirical evidence on ways to improve it. The problems with education are almost all political... but this thread isn't really about education, though is it? From reading your posts, it seems like you really want this thread to be a battle over education and if I had to guess I'd say that Feynman's insightful almost throwaway comment on education really struck a nerve.

> Now, you may not want to call it "science" but that doesn't make the results meaningless.

If you're not doing good science, then your results will likely only be indirectly useful. The last 50 years of increasing education expenditures without showing any results speaks volumes about what a tragedy having an attitude like yours is. Maybe if someone had listened to Feynman in 1974 and quickly eliminated any educational expenditures that didn't produce results, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#23

Post by Retric »

Jun8 wrote: post #19
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is science is all or nothing. If you half ass it your simply wasting time. Perhaps you can't do controlled experiments with people that's fine, give up and go work on something else don't compromise and still call it science. Because your results are meaningless. PS: How much useful information has been gained from human nutritional experimentation over the last 50 years?

I disagree. Take the education reform problem (in the US). A number of solutions have been proposed, which one should we implement, or should we come up with a new one? Are teachers' ratings completely bogus, as some claim, or can they be used to rate them. People want answers, you can't just give up. Not everybody can close shop and work on other, more well-defined problems because these problems need to be solved,…

You can do meaningful science with people. There are plenty of solid drug studies out there, and even good education research. What I mean is there are experiments you don't get to do with people and when that happens you need to move on and not try and get by half assing it.

So, you don't get to see what happens when people eat the exact diet you want them to for 20 years. Having people fill out servery on what they ate is not a reasonable substitute. In this case there are options like sending people actual food. You don't know if they eat it, but you do know you sent it and you can measure outcomes based on what food was sent.

PS: Also, most of what your talking about is almost pure politics. When politics and science really clash it's rare for science to make much headway. See: Climate Change, Evolution, etc.

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#24

Post by pm90 »

inconditus wrote: post #11
irahul wrote: post #4

What's remarkable is Feynman went to great lengths in investigating the crackpot theories, instead of outright rejecting them. I won't even bother trying doing anything he mentions in the article, except for the esalen jaccuzi thing(wink wink). And I am pretty sure I will end up as Feynman did. Geeks and there "Well, actually" http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html I think the point he is trying to make to…

Your anecdote about the bowling ball is (AFAIK) incorrect, you're thinking about Walter Lewin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaALPa7Dwdw . (starts at 1:08)

It was done by Feynman first (I had heard of it in 2007, before this video was published, when I was finding about Feynman after reading his classic "Surely you're .."). I don't think Lewin acknowledged that though

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#25

Post by inconditus »

pm90 wrote: post #24
inconditus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your anecdote about the bowling ball is (AFAIK) incorrect, you're thinking about Walter Lewin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaALPa7Dwdw . (starts at 1:08)

It was done by Feynman first (I had heard of it in 2007, before this video was published, when I was finding about Feynman after reading his classic "Surely you're .."). I don't think Lewin acknowledged that though

Walter Lewin's been doing it since 198x, probably earlier.

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#26

Post by cma »

gjm11 wrote: post #8
ymusti wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another Feynman bowling ball story. He was watching a younger physics prof make the same demonstration in a Caltech lecture hall. Instead of cleanly releasing the ball, she inadvertently gave it a slight shove. Fortunately for her, Feynman saw the mistake and pushed her out of the way of the returning ball which left a mark in the wall where her head had been.

The kinetic energy in the ball's motion when it returned to her face should have been no greater than that imparted by the "slight shove". Can't have been so very slight. (Or else leaving a mark in the wall was easier than it sounds.) I just tried thwacking my nose with about as much force as I could reasonably describe as a "slight shove" in that situation. It wasn't terribly pleasant, but it wasn't very painful and…

A bowling ball is inelastic; whatever you thwacked your nose with (your hand?) definitely isn't. Drop an egg 1 foot onto a carpet, then try onto concrete.

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#27

Post by irahul »

inconditus wrote: post #25
pm90 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was done by Feynman first (I had heard of it in 2007, before this video was published, when I was finding about Feynman after reading his classic "Surely you're .."). I don't think Lewin acknowledged that though

Walter Lewin's been doing it since 198x, probably earlier.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-03-12/news/ga-1006_1_feynma...

> He first encountered Feynman as a freshman in 1961 > On the first day of class, Scott recalled,

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#29

Post by gjm11 »

cma wrote: post #26
gjm11 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kinetic energy in the ball's motion when it returned to her face should have been no greater than that imparted by the "slight shove". Can't have been so very slight. (Or else leaving a mark in the wall was easier than it sounds.) I just tried thwacking my nose with about as much force as I could reasonably describe as a "slight shove" in that situation. It wasn't terribly pleasant, but it wasn't very painful and…

A bowling ball is inelastic; whatever you thwacked your nose with (your hand?) definitely isn't. Drop an egg 1 foot onto a carpet, then try onto concrete.

Yes, fair comment. I don't think that makes more than a factor of 2 difference, though. When the impact happens, in one case the squashing is half in my nose and half in my hand, versus all in my nose if it's a bowling ball.

(The egg example makes things look worse than they are. If an egg squashes at all, it breaks. My nose can squash quite a bit before that happens.)

Re: Richard Feynman’s Caltech Graduation Address on Integrity

#30

Post by Tichy »

gjm11 wrote: post #8
ymusti wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another Feynman bowling ball story. He was watching a younger physics prof make the same demonstration in a Caltech lecture hall. Instead of cleanly releasing the ball, she inadvertently gave it a slight shove. Fortunately for her, Feynman saw the mistake and pushed her out of the way of the returning ball which left a mark in the wall where her head had been.

The kinetic energy in the ball's motion when it returned to her face should have been no greater than that imparted by the "slight shove". Can't have been so very slight. (Or else leaving a mark in the wall was easier than it sounds.) I just tried thwacking my nose with about as much force as I could reasonably describe as a "slight shove" in that situation. It wasn't terribly pleasant, but it wasn't very painful and…

"I just tried thwacking my nose with about as much force as I could reasonably describe as a "slight shove" in that situation"

Good to know that this kind of scientific spirit still exists :-)

Post reply on HN