The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen- Scientist Pdf, Epub, Ebook

THE MEANING OF IT ALL: THOUGHTS OF A CITIZEN- SCIENTIST PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

That is indeed difficult. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are fully appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting. It usually ends in laughter and a delight in the futility of trying to understand what this atom in the universe is, this thing—atoms with curiosity—that looks at itself and wonders why it wonders. Well, these 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. Some will tell me that I have just described a religious experience. Very well, you may call it what you will. Then, in that language I would say that the young man's religious experience is of such a kind that he finds the religion of his church inadequate to describe, to encompass that kind of experience. The God of the church isn't big enough. I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget. The same key opens the gates of hell. Earn up to 5x points when you use your eBay Mastercard. Learn more. Any international shipping is paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab International shipping and import charges paid to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Any international shipping and import charges are paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab Any international shipping is paid in part to Pitney Bowes Inc. Learn More - opens in a new window or tab. Related sponsored items Feedback on our suggestions - Related sponsored items. Last one. Report item - opens in a new window or tab. Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: Very Good: A book that does not look new and has been read but is in excellent condition. No obvious damage to the cover, with the dust jacket if applicable included for hard covers. May be very minimal identifying marks on the inside cover. Very minimal wear and tear. See all condition definitions - opens in a new window or tab Read more about the condition. Shipping and handling. The seller has not specified a shipping method to Germany. Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request shipping to your location. Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code. Shipping to: United States. No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. My guess is that he was either winking at the audience when he said that laughing at his own provincialism , or that he simply misspoke. In either case, though this error is trivial and irrelevant, its inclusion will, I suspect, give some readers an excuse to dismiss his arguments as products of ignorance. My recommendation to all but the most die-hard completists is to skip The Meaning of it all and instead pick up Surely You're Joking Mr. Surely You're Joking QED and The Character of Physical Law are by far the deepest and yet the most accessible math-free science books that I've ever come across. Jun 20, Katie rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. What a wonderful, quick, fascinating read. I'd say this is my new manifesto if the idea of having a manifesto didn't go against nearly everything inside. This is the first thing I've read by Richard Feynman and I'm very excited to read more. He's clearly one of those people who is talented at everything, and could have been a celebrated poet or an economist if he didn't become a physicist instead. I'm a little surprised to see some many reviews here that suggest that this collection of lectures i What a wonderful, quick, fascinating read. I'm a little surprised to see some many reviews here that suggest that this collection of lectures is scattershot or unfocused. Feynman jumps around from example to example, but the whole thing works really well as a celebration of uncertainty and openness. I liked this, because I think uncertainty is a hugely undervalued trait at least in American society, I can't speak for elsewhere. It's often see as a sign of weakness or cowardice, which is silly: it's often difficult and frightening to remain undecided about something, and requires a good deal of personal strength and questioning. But Feynman notes that this indecision is hugely valuable, in science and beyond: it's the only way to discover new questions and new possibilities and it keeps the world open to change and growth. These lectures are permeated with a kind of cautious idealism that I found to be really attractive. You could read through it in an afternoon, and I highly recommend it. View 1 comment. Richard Feynman was something else. He summarizes the curious, scientific worldview like no other. There are 3 lectures by Feynman here that he presented in Seattle, WA in the early 60s, about , I think. Personally, Feynman was far more of a hoot than Dawkins. IOW, he's the finest kind of scientist. The lectures are about the Unce There are 3 lectures by Feynman here that he presented in Seattle, WA in the early 60s, about , I think. The lectures are about the Uncertainty of Science. His main points here are that we shouldn't be looking for politicians with the answers, but those with the best plan to obtain the answers. Religion should be subject to verifiable scrutiny just like everything else. Of course, more than likely they couldn't, but there is a possibility. The third is about a variety of subjects; what society looks like to him. This was by far the best. I really like his idea that we should change our arguments into discussions about goals. He says he really likes the goals of the Pope, but doesn't like how he arrived at them. Highly recommended. The only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars is there isn't much that's new. I respect Mr Feynman's intelligence and skill as a lecturer. His reputation makes me feel bad about giving this book only two stars. But this book isn't his best work. The three lectures in this book were given in It's interesting to speculate how his speech would be different if given today. In the lectures may have seemed more cutting edge. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about the relationship between religion and science. Well, he did a fine job describing the I respect Mr Feynman's intelligence and skill as a lecturer. Well, he did a fine job describing the conflict between religion and science. Then he asked the question, "How can religion and science coexist without being a threat to each other? But I was disappointed. One interesting thing he said is that there are some scientists who believe in God, but there aren't very many who have an image of God that matches that of their parents. Of course that's true of many non-scientists too. Jan 31, Anupam Ranku rated it really liked it. Reading Richard Feynman's book is always entertaining. This book consists of a transcript of three lectures. I think listening to the lectures would have been more fun. Some notable lines: - Keep trying new solutions is the way to do everything. What a wonderful world! And yet today we find, by playing with these things, that we have a tremendous amount of machinery inside. Yet science is still not thoroughly appreciated. How can an observation be incorrect? If it has been carefully checked, how can it be wrong? Why are physicists always having to change the laws? The answer is, first, that the laws are not the observation and, second, that experiments are always inaccurate. The laws are guessed laws, extrapolations, not something that the observations insist upon. They are just good guesses that have gone through the sieve so far. Laws are extrapolations into the unknown. All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experiments with doubt and uncertainty are important. I believe that it is of very great value and one that extends beyond the sciences. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. By God, I mean the kind of personal God, to which one prays, who has something to do with creation. Apr 13, Manan rated it it was amazing. This guy never ceases to amaze me. This book drives down deeply, the value of being uncertain. Dec 21, Hind rated it it was amazing Shelves: 5- stars , non-fiction , physics , other-science. A very useful read for aspiring scientists as well as the average layman. Jan 27, Jim Razinha rated it really liked it. I know this may be a shock, but I've never read Feynman until now. Of course, I pick a transcription of a three night series of lectures for my first, rather than his But, one gets a sense of his humor. Feynman's first two lectures had structure, and yet this still reads like the spoken lecture it was - sidetracks here and there. O I know this may be a shock, but I've never read Feynman until now. Okay, he was all over the place, and he admits his third lecture is a collection of thoughts, with less structure, certainly, and it reads like it. In The Uncertainty of Science, Feynman talks about science being "a method of finding things out". Observation is king in this aspect: if "there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be rpoved by observation, that rule is wrong. And But if a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, wrong, or stupid. Scientists take all those things that can be analyzed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean those things are unimportant. What follows is one of the many times he was all over the place that I mentioned at the start. Feynman says that the more specific a scientific "rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test. A great deal has been made of this by philosophers, who say that words must be defined extremely precisely. Actually, I disagree somewhat with this; I think that extreme precision of definition is often not worthwhile, and sometimes it is not possible—in fact mostly it is not possible, but I will not get into that argument here. I think his point is meaningless. Definitions are not the issue. What words are used is. Regardless, he closes that first lecture with "Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open questions and an uncertain matter. In his second lecture, The Uncertainty of Values, Feynman skirts and flirts with something Gould thought was non-overlapping. By being uncertain, we can progress. On the other end, there is little as certain as a devout religious man, who will not progress. My thoughts, not his. At least not here. He does pose a thought exercise of a young man recall, this is Feynman believed without data that more than half of scientists did not believe in their father's God and asks, why? By answering this question I think that we will point up most clearly the problems of the relation of religion and science. Well, why is it? There are three possibilities. The first is that the young man is taught by the scientists, and I have already pointed out, they are atheists, and so their evil is spread from the teacher to the student, perpetually. Thank you for the laughter. If you take this point of view, I believe it shows that you know less of science than I know of religion. The second possibility was an assumption that a little knowledge was dangerous and the young man having learned a little science now thought he knew everything. And the third possibility was that the young man didn't understand science correctly, because science cannot disprove God. Feynman says "It is not my purpose to disprove anything. But Feynman does take the discussion in the right direction" 'Is there a God, or isn't there a God? First, in the past there were conflicts. The metaphysical positions have changed, and there have been practically no effects on the ethical views. So there must be a hint that there is an independence. I don't have any evidence of it on the basis of scientific study. And finally I would like to make a little philosophical argument [ Should I do this? Cause and effect can usually be determined, but an effect from cause may not necessarily follow. As to his first point and the hint of independence, I say there is a hint, but not confirmation. And to his second point, he traps himself with naming Christian ethics, which are neither exclusive nor original. Nor divinely revealed. In , Russia was still the big threat, and he had thoughts on it: Russia is a backward country. Oh, it is technologically advanced. I described the difference between what I like to call the science and technology. It does not apparently seem, unfortunately, that engineering and technological development are not consistent with suppressed new opinion. It appears, at least in the days of Hitler, where no new science was developed, nevertheless rockets were made, and rockets also can be made in Russia. I am sorry to hear that, but it is true that technological development, the applications of science, can go on without the freedom. Russia is backward because it has not learned that there is a limit to government power. The great discovery of the Anglo-Saxons is—they are not the only people who thought of it, but, to take the later history of the long struggle of the idea—that there can be a limit to government power. Today, members of a certain non-progressive political party claim to want to reduce government, yet they actually want to increase their power. Feynman also says The fact that Russia is not free is clear to everyone, and the consequences in the sciences are quite obvious. One of the best examples is Lysenko, who has a theory of genetics, which is that acquired characteristics can be passed on to the offspring. This is probably true. You can imagine my reaction. The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts Of A Citizen-Scientist By Richard P Feynman | eBay

In the first lecture, he talks about the uncertainty of science. Everything about science is uncertain; the scientif When I read a book for someone like Richard Feynman, the first things jumps to my mind is how lucky were his students. Everything about science is uncertain; the scientific findings themselves, the purposes of the scientific researches, and the consequences of the science development. The second lecture is about the uncertainty of values. He compares the scientific findings to the religious and moral values. He means by that, that despite the development of science, but people are still following the power of economy and strategical leadership, and not necessarily the value of the scientific findings. Richard Feynman is a very fine physicist, but he is also a very fine philosopher. I strongly recommend this book to everybody in science business; i. It was a great book. Feb 12, Susan rated it liked it. I felt the chapter The Unscientific Age redeemed this book. I barely could keep my attention on it. But when I came to the final chapter his point finally clicked. I think he has quite a bit to say about conspiracy theories and widespread paranoia. I wish the American public could read this chapter! Besides that though I felt the book was too rambling and not pointed and emphatic enough. It is almost like he wanted all his words to maintain a sort of equivalent nature. Not good when writing a bo I felt the chapter The Unscientific Age redeemed this book. Not good when writing a book where you want to make a strong point about things. Sep 11, Lada rated it really liked it. There's not much here that a scientist probably has not thought of on their own, nor is it expressed in a way that would make you pause and think of things in a new way, but the historical context civil rights, space exploration, cold war and the fact that it is a self-admitted brain dump by Freynman, make it a worthwhile read. Aug 21, Daniel Kraft rated it did not like it. The reason I read this book is because of Feynman was a part of the Manhattan project also because he was a nobel laureate. It is a rare occurrence considering that Feynman was instrumental, and fully aware of what he was doing, in the creation of the atomi The reason I read this book is because of Feynman was a part of the Manhattan project also because he was a nobel laureate. Feynman was present during the Trinity test and was asked to follow along the plane that dropped Little boy. If this light is so intense it can be seen from another planet - and if I knew it would be used on people - I would think twice about what I was a part of creating. This is what Feynman should have written about. And the effect this power has had need hardly be mentioned. The product of this power is either good or evil, depending on how it is used. The same key opens the gates of hell. No principle can be derived from it or the arguments above. When the scientist is told that he must be more responsible for his effects on society, it is the applications of science that are referred to. If you work to develop nuclear energy you must realize also that it can be used harmfully. Therefore, you would expect that, in a discussion of this kind by a scientist, this would be the most important topic. But I will not talk about it further. I think that to say these are scientific problems is an exaggeration. They are far more humanitarian problems. The fact that how to work the power is clear, but how to control it is not, is something not so scientific and is not something that the scientist knows so much about. Secondly, there are not so many different things you can do with a bomb considering this is my interest in the book. No discussion can be made of moral values, of the meaning of life and so on, without coming to the great source of systems of morality and descriptions of meaning, which is in the field of religion. The latter would be a question that could not be answered whilst the first one can, according to Feynman. In-depth-analysis is never given. All these generalizations and dead ends are extremely frustrating while reading. Everything Feynman has to say about ethics or meaning or value is trivial. The entire field of moral philosophy is overlooked. And this completely astonished me while reading, considering the impact Feynman has. From the overview of events presented earlier, listening to Feynman-interviews, I know two things. First of all that Feynman was in crucial for the Manhattan project, fully aware of what was going on, and first handedly experienced all of the events. Why was it never discussed that the enemies of USA would also have nuclear weapons in the forseeable future? The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were means justifying an end. The end here is probably asserting dominance. And to some extent ending WWII. Anscombe famously wrote in Mr. Come now: if you had to choose between boiling one baby and letting some frightful disaster befall on a thousand people - or a million people, if a thousand is not enough - what would you do? Are you going to strike an attitude and say 'You may not do evil that may come'? Infants and children that were bathed when Little boy were dropped on Hiroshima, boiled to death. Whether this is justified should be the starting point of any discussion regarding justification of scientific research. And devoted the same fortune to charity. View all 4 comments. Richard P. Feynman 's The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts Of A Citizen- scientist is a delightful series of three lectures on the uncertainty of science, then of values, and ending with the best of all -- "This Unscientific Age" -- which deals with popular notions which militate against science in favor of various shaky beliefs. Feynman is a great believer in uncertainty as a guiding principle in life: I made an impassioned plea for the idea that it's good to have an open channel, that there's value in Richard P. Feynman is a great believer in uncertainty as a guiding principle in life: I made an impassioned plea for the idea that it's good to have an open channel, that there's value in uncertainty, that it's more important to permit us to discover new things, rather than to choose a solution that we now make up -- that to choose a solution, no matter how we choose it now is to choose a much worse thing than what we would get if we waited and worked things out. And that's where I made the choice, and I'm not sure of that choice. Okay, I have now destroyed authority. In an age of cockamamie beliefs ranging from fundamentalist religion to astrology to New Age, it is better, according to Feynman, to hold back and consider the issue more systematically and at greater length. It is a pity that we no longer have Feynman with us: We need him more than ever at this time of division. Yes, Feynman thinks but it isn't that simple. A problem, however, is whether scientists and average citizens find value in placing importance on the realities Uncertainty places. Read Black Swan along with this book for additional insight into uncertainties and other related concepts slightly over my head. You can learn from directly from the statistician's mouth. My favorite point he makes around page when he talks about people lacking a proper sense of proportion, which is sometimes a result of people, and even countries, using a certain method of paralysis against them, and what the bigger picture reveals in any given situation. I agree with this and see this behavior in alot of people today. He gives other amazing examples and ideas. I'll end with two statements he made and play them back to back: "There is no authority who decides what is a good idea. Here we have 3 lectures generally entitled "A Scientist looks at Society", transcribed verbatim, apparently. I can hear, even picture Feynman when reading it; he had a distinctive way of speaking that was very natural and not polished at all, including hesitations, corrections and minor mistakes of language. Not often did he memorise a speech. Here, Feynman wades a long way beyond his own territory to examine the relationship of science to politics, religion and other aspects of wider Western civ Here we have 3 lectures generally entitled "A Scientist looks at Society", transcribed verbatim, apparently. Here, Feynman wades a long way beyond his own territory to examine the relationship of science to politics, religion and other aspects of wider Western civilisation. He repeatedly points out that he is no authority, he could be wrong in his conclusions and so forth, which leads one towards examining his arguments on their merits rather than the celebrity or reputation of Feynman himself If you want to know how to do that, well this book is a reasonable starting point. Other works by Feynman could help, too. It does no harm for practising scientists to be reminded of some basic principles, too. Various people have been insisting that I should respect Argument from Authority, recently and it is literally depressing me that they cannot see that if scientists took such an approach we would still have Plato's world-view. Sep 12, Eve Proofreads rated it it was amazing. So here it is, the greatest puzzle of all, life, the universe and everything, as discussed by the genius, Richard Feynman. The Nobel Prize winning physicist is often quoted in popular science; I thought it was about time I read him in his own words. This book contains three public lectures given in And we turn like a spit in front of a great fire. We whirl around the sun…But see that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man. No one who did not have some inkling of this through observations could have imagined such a marvel as nature is. His confident rhetoric shows in places a sensitive balance that allows the audience to consider his statements without pressure. Dec 30, Brian rated it liked it Shelves: nonfiction , science , philosophy. She said the lead technical person in the investigation was this interesting scientist, who I later found out was Richard Feynman. Luckily, my wife had recorded the movie as well as a small documentary of this "scientist". After watching both pieces, I was amazed I'd never heard of this man, but was so glad that she'd shown these movies to me. About the book. The only reason I gave this book 3 stars, is because I struggled with the delivery of the speech being transcribed in print. I've seen videos of Mr. Feynman before, and found him lively and amazing and the way he speaks just didn't work for me in print. The topics were right on the money though and I would recommend this book to anyone who finds Mr. Feynman as amazing as I do or if they want to hear perspectives on topics such as religion, politics, etc. Dec 13, Simon added it. Certainly not a must-read, but it opened my mind on certain issues. The book consists of three lectures written down, unsummarised. That makes the book light to read. Feynman is a great thinker. He has the ability to word things simply, yet powerful. He dwindles on the subjects of morals, possibility versus probability, uncertainty. He leaves the conclusion to the public or reader in this case There are no hard truths. If you think you know it all, reconsider. A collection of three lectures given by Feynman in Unfortunately, these lectures were very non-technical in nature, with Feynman talking about his views on science, society, religion, and the relationships between them. He's engaging enough, but the subject matter is rather thin, especially if you're already pretty committed to a scientific worldview. This is probably pretty good if you are looking to read some basic philosophy from a leading scientist's point of view, but if, like me, you A collection of three lectures given by Feynman in This is probably pretty good if you are looking to read some basic philosophy from a leading scientist's point of view, but if, like me, you came into this expecting more hard science, you're likely to be a little disappointed. Apr 19, Shuby Deshpande rated it really liked it Shelves: favorites , essays , memoirs , non-fiction , philosophy , physics , science. This book gives fresh insight into Richard Feynman's thought process. It's a delightful read that contains his views on politics and philosophy, and takes the reader on a tour of applying the 'scientific' perspective to societal problems. The originality of his thought processes shines through from start to finish, culminating in an end that leaves the reader longing for more. What a great way to approach the conflicts among science, religion and politics. Feynman goes straight to the point making sure that he is amusing his audience. Three 'science' lectures from by Dr Feynman may not sound like everyone's cup of tea, but this short book makes for very accessible, thought-provoking reading to pretty much anyone. The first two are quite short, and the third one touches briefly upon a myriad topics - science, religion, politics, astrology, propaganda, scammers, advertising, statistics, and basically, sensible free-thinking and philosophy. Hardly any of this has dated at all over the last 50yrs, and is arguably more releva Three 'science' lectures from by Dr Feynman may not sound like everyone's cup of tea, but this short book makes for very accessible, thought-provoking reading to pretty much anyone. Hardly any of this has dated at all over the last 50yrs, and is arguably more relevant these days. In case you are deterred by the 'scientific' look of this book, don't be. There are no equations, no hard maths, just lots of conversational questions to ponder. It's a great book, but to me, that is its weakness. It tries to point out the illogical and silly, superstitious way many of us behave, and is therefore most useful to those kinds of superstitious halfwits who would never consider reading such a book. For the rest of us though, it's a good 4. Dec 08, Pete rated it liked it Shelves: nonfiction. The book seems to have been published because many people will read so much of what Feynman wrote. Feynman's other books are really fantastic. Feynman really goes off his topics of real expertise and writes about politics, about philosophy and even ventures into theology. See all condition definitions - opens in a new window or tab Read more about the condition. Shipping and handling. The seller has not specified a shipping method to Germany. Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request shipping to your location. Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code. Shipping to: United States. No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. There are 1 items available. Please enter a number less than or equal to 1. Select a valid country. Please enter 5 or 9 numbers for the ZIP Code. Handling time. Taxes may be applicable at checkout. Return policy. Refer to eBay Return policy for more details. You are covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee if you receive an item that is not as described in the listing. Payment details. Payment methods. Other offers may also be available. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the balance is not paid in full within 6 months. Minimum monthly payments are required. Subject to credit approval. His premise is that science, unfortunately, does not play a part in art, literature, peoples attitudes, etc. He then bounces around topics such as astrology, UFOs, and politics, where he believes the candidate who has a plan when you ask him a question is just setting you up for disappointment sorry, Elizabeth Warren! He opines that such a person could never get elected. I wonder what he would have thought of George W. There are a couple of points in this third lecture that are noteworthy though, particularly for what would happen later in the US. From this, Feynman goes into a discussion of statistics and calculating probability, and the problems that even scientists have in this area. With statistical sampling, the way you choose your sample is crucial; sometimes researchers stack the deck by using samples that are skewed in favor of whatever theory they are testing. Feynman later discusses the Mariner II voyage to Venus August which encountered a number of problems while in space, including overheating. Feynman suggests that NASA hurried its production, making changes that led to these problems. NASA managers were using statistics that made the probability of a systems problem seem low, while engineers estimated a much higher probability that something could go wrong. Richard Feynman never intended for these lectures to be published. His family chose to publish them ten years after his death. I have found them to be thought provoking, despite the unevenness in presentation. I am now interested in whether other scientists agree that questions of morality have no place in scientific inquiry, and what their thoughts are on the compatibility of science and religious belief. Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Science requires great imagination: The great difficulty is in trying to imagine something that you have never seen, that is consistent in every detail with what has already been seen and that is different from what has been thought of … it must be a definite and not a vague proposition. Comments Congratulations on your bingo! The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist by Richard P. Feynman

The great difficulty is in trying to imagine something that you have never seen, that is consistent in every detail with what has already been seen and that is different from what has been thought of … it must be a definite and not a vague proposition. Scientific laws are nothing but guesses. Doubt is the hallmark of science. It should be and must be welcomed in science. This lecture is a bit more ambitious. Feynman is treading on territory that is not as familiar to him and it shows. We think we could be doing better or more than we are, that we should have peace. But it turns out that falsehood and evil can be taught as easily as good. Education is a great power but it can work either way. And so Feynman then launches into his ideas on the conflict between religion and science. He defines religion as everyday, personal practice of a faith, not in terms of theology. Science deals in uncertainty while religion deals in certainty. When it comes to international relations, Feynman is talking about the US and its relationship with Russia. It helps to know a little history when reading this part of the lecture. In , the Cold War was in full swing. The race for space was well underway. Russia was the number one danger in the world, and Feynman has many good points to make about the need for scientists to be free to question, to doubt, and to pursue new ideas without having to worry about ideologies. As he says, when you stop ideas, you stop mankind from moving forward. I have to wonder if he even had anything written down before he took the stage. His premise is that science, unfortunately, does not play a part in art, literature, peoples attitudes, etc. He then bounces around topics such as astrology, UFOs, and politics, where he believes the candidate who has a plan when you ask him a question is just setting you up for disappointment sorry, Elizabeth Warren! He opines that such a person could never get elected. I wonder what he would have thought of George W. There are a couple of points in this third lecture that are noteworthy though, particularly for what would happen later in the US. From this, Feynman goes into a discussion of statistics and calculating probability, and the problems that even scientists have in this area. With statistical sampling, the way you choose your sample is crucial; sometimes researchers stack the deck by using samples that are skewed in favor of whatever theory they are testing. Feynman later discusses the Mariner II voyage to Venus August which encountered a number of problems while in space, including overheating. Feynman suggests that NASA hurried its production, making changes that led to these problems. NASA managers were using statistics that made the probability of a systems problem seem low, while engineers estimated a much higher probability that something could go wrong. Refresh and try again. See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. If they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn. It is a very interesting kind of imagination, unlike that of the artist. The great difficulty is in trying to imagine something that you have never seen, that is consistent in every detail with what has already been seen, and that is different from what has been thought of; furthermore, it must be definite and not a vague proposition. That is indeed difficult. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are fully appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting. It usually ends in laughter and a delight in the futility of trying to understand what this atom in the universe is, this thing—atoms with curiosity—that looks at itself and wonders why it wonders. Well, these 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. Some will tell me that I have just described a religious experience. Very well, you may call it what you will. Then, in that language I would say that the young man's religious experience is of such a kind that he finds the religion of his church inadequate to describe, to encompass that kind of experience. The God of the church isn't big enough. I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true. In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something that you will never forget. The same key opens the gates of hell.

The Meaning of It All Quotes by Richard P. Feynman

More filters. Sort order. Feb 06, Richard rated it liked it. The Meaning of it All is based on lectures given by Richard Feynman to lay audiences at the University of Washington, Seattle, over three nights in April , on science and its relationship to social problems and religion. All of Feynman's published books are similarly based on recordings of lectures or conversations. It pains me to say anything negative about a book by Feynman but this is one that probably should never have been published, except as part of a "Complete Works" set. This is p The Meaning of it All is based on lectures given by Richard Feynman to lay audiences at the University of Washington, Seattle, over three nights in April , on science and its relationship to social problems and religion. This is partly due to a lack of editorial cleanup, and partly because Feynman appears to have been in rare bad form for these talks. Well, bad compared to the rest of his stuff; if this were the only book of his philosophy in existence then it would be imperfect but still kinda awesome. There's not much here that Feynman hasn't expressed elsewhere with greater eloquence. In these lectures he makes a number of false starts and abrupt stops, and some minor errors most of which should have been fixed by an editor. At one point for instance, he uses "infinitesimal" when he obviously means to say "infinite. I'm pretty sure that Feynman would have found that elevation of reverence over substance to be absurd. There's only one clear instance in the book in which an editor has touched the material; a parenthetical notation that Feynman had completed a sentence with a hand gesture instead of words. At another point, Feynman apologizes for his limited knowledge of world religions and expresses the hope that "Hindus and Arabs" wouldn't feel excluded by his references to the religion with which he was most familiar, Christianity Feynman had been born to a Jewish family but was an atheist. My guess is that he was either winking at the audience when he said that laughing at his own provincialism , or that he simply misspoke. In either case, though this error is trivial and irrelevant, its inclusion will, I suspect, give some readers an excuse to dismiss his arguments as products of ignorance. My recommendation to all but the most die-hard completists is to skip The Meaning of it all and instead pick up Surely You're Joking Mr. Surely You're Joking QED and The Character of Physical Law are by far the deepest and yet the most accessible math-free science books that I've ever come across. Jun 20, Katie rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. What a wonderful, quick, fascinating read. I'd say this is my new manifesto if the idea of having a manifesto didn't go against nearly everything inside. This is the first thing I've read by Richard Feynman and I'm very excited to read more. He's clearly one of those people who is talented at everything, and could have been a celebrated poet or an economist if he didn't become a physicist instead. I'm a little surprised to see some many reviews here that suggest that this collection of lectures i What a wonderful, quick, fascinating read. I'm a little surprised to see some many reviews here that suggest that this collection of lectures is scattershot or unfocused. Feynman jumps around from example to example, but the whole thing works really well as a celebration of uncertainty and openness. I liked this, because I think uncertainty is a hugely undervalued trait at least in American society, I can't speak for elsewhere. It's often see as a sign of weakness or cowardice, which is silly: it's often difficult and frightening to remain undecided about something, and requires a good deal of personal strength and questioning. But Feynman notes that this indecision is hugely valuable, in science and beyond: it's the only way to discover new questions and new possibilities and it keeps the world open to change and growth. These lectures are permeated with a kind of cautious idealism that I found to be really attractive. You could read through it in an afternoon, and I highly recommend it. View 1 comment. Richard Feynman was something else. He summarizes the curious, scientific worldview like no other. There are 3 lectures by Feynman here that he presented in Seattle, WA in the early 60s, about , I think. Personally, Feynman was far more of a hoot than Dawkins. IOW, he's the finest kind of scientist. The lectures are about the Unce There are 3 lectures by Feynman here that he presented in Seattle, WA in the early 60s, about , I think. The lectures are about the Uncertainty of Science. His main points here are that we shouldn't be looking for politicians with the answers, but those with the best plan to obtain the answers. Religion should be subject to verifiable scrutiny just like everything else. Of course, more than likely they couldn't, but there is a possibility. The third is about a variety of subjects; what society looks like to him. This was by far the best. I really like his idea that we should change our arguments into discussions about goals. He says he really likes the goals of the Pope, but doesn't like how he arrived at them. Highly recommended. The only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars is there isn't much that's new. I respect Mr Feynman's intelligence and skill as a lecturer. His reputation makes me feel bad about giving this book only two stars. But this book isn't his best work. The three lectures in this book were given in It's interesting to speculate how his speech would be different if given today. In the lectures may have seemed more cutting edge. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about the relationship between religion and science. Well, he did a fine job describing the I respect Mr Feynman's intelligence and skill as a lecturer. Well, he did a fine job describing the conflict between religion and science. Then he asked the question, "How can religion and science coexist without being a threat to each other? But I was disappointed. One interesting thing he said is that there are some scientists who believe in God, but there aren't very many who have an image of God that matches that of their parents. Of course that's true of many non-scientists too. Jan 31, Anupam Ranku rated it really liked it. Reading Richard Feynman's book is always entertaining. This book consists of a transcript of three lectures. I think listening to the lectures would have been more fun. Some notable lines: - Keep trying new solutions is the way to do everything. What a wonderful world! And yet today we find, by playing with these things, that we have a tremendous amount of machinery inside. Yet science is still not thoroughly appreciated. How can an observation be incorrect? If it has been carefully checked, how can it be wrong? Why are physicists always having to change the laws? The answer is, first, that the laws are not the observation and, second, that experiments are always inaccurate. The laws are guessed laws, extrapolations, not something that the observations insist upon. They are just good guesses that have gone through the sieve so far. Laws are extrapolations into the unknown. All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experiments with doubt and uncertainty are important. I believe that it is of very great value and one that extends beyond the sciences. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. By God, I mean the kind of personal God, to which one prays, who has something to do with creation. Apr 13, Manan rated it it was amazing. This guy never ceases to amaze me. This book drives down deeply, the value of being uncertain. Dec 21, Hind rated it it was amazing Shelves: 5-stars , non-fiction , physics , other-science. A very useful read for aspiring scientists as well as the average layman. Jan 27, Jim Razinha rated it really liked it. I know this may be a shock, but I've never read Feynman until now. Of course, I pick a transcription of a three night series of lectures for my first, rather than his But, one gets a sense of his humor. Feynman's first two lectures had structure, and yet this still reads like the spoken lecture it was - sidetracks here and there. O I know this may be a shock, but I've never read Feynman until now. Okay, he was all over the place, and he admits his third lecture is a collection of thoughts, with less structure, certainly, and it reads like it. In The Uncertainty of Science, Feynman talks about science being "a method of finding things out". Observation is king in this aspect: if "there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be rpoved by observation, that rule is wrong. And But if a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, wrong, or stupid. Scientists take all those things that can be analyzed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean those things are unimportant. What follows is one of the many times he was all over the place that I mentioned at the start. Feynman says that the more specific a scientific "rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test. A great deal has been made of this by philosophers, who say that words must be defined extremely precisely. Actually, I disagree somewhat with this; I think that extreme precision of definition is often not worthwhile, and sometimes it is not possible—in fact mostly it is not possible, but I will not get into that argument here. I think his point is meaningless. Definitions are not the issue. What words are used is. Regardless, he closes that first lecture with "Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open questions and an uncertain matter. In his second lecture, The Uncertainty of Values, Feynman skirts and flirts with something Gould thought was non-overlapping. By being uncertain, we can progress. On the other end, there is little as certain as a devout religious man, who will not progress. My thoughts, not his. At least not here. He does pose a thought exercise of a young man recall, this is Feynman believed without data that more than half of scientists did not believe in their father's God and asks, why? By answering this question I think that we will point up most clearly the problems of the relation of religion and science. Well, why is it? There are three possibilities. The first is that the young man is taught by the scientists, and I have already pointed out, they are atheists, and so their evil is spread from the teacher to the student, perpetually. Thank you for the laughter. If you take this point of view, I believe it shows that you know less of science than I know of religion. The second possibility was an assumption that a little knowledge was dangerous and the young man having learned a little science now thought he knew everything. And the third possibility was that the young man didn't understand science correctly, because science cannot disprove God. Feynman says "It is not my purpose to disprove anything. But Feynman does take the discussion in the right direction" 'Is there a God, or isn't there a God? First, in the past there were conflicts. The metaphysical positions have changed, and there have been practically no effects on the ethical views. So there must be a hint that there is an independence. I don't have any evidence of it on the basis of scientific study. And finally I would like to make a little philosophical argument [ Should I do this? Cause and effect can usually be determined, but an effect from cause may not necessarily follow. As to his first point and the hint of independence, I say there is a hint, but not confirmation. And to his second point, he traps himself with naming Christian ethics, which are neither exclusive nor original. Nor divinely revealed. In , Russia was still the big threat, and he had thoughts on it: Russia is a backward country. Oh, it is technologically advanced. I described the difference between what I like to call the science and technology. It does not apparently seem, unfortunately, that engineering and technological development are not consistent with suppressed new opinion. It appears, at least in the days of Hitler, where no new science was developed, nevertheless rockets were made, and rockets also can be made in Russia. I am sorry to hear that, but it is true that technological development, the applications of science, can go on without the freedom. Russia is backward because it has not learned that there is a limit to government power. The great discovery of the Anglo-Saxons is—they are not the only people who thought of it, but, to take the later history of the long struggle of the idea—that there can be a limit to government power. Today, members of a certain non-progressive political party claim to want to reduce government, yet they actually want to increase their power. Feynman also says The fact that Russia is not free is clear to everyone, and the consequences in the sciences are quite obvious. One of the best examples is Lysenko, who has a theory of genetics, which is that acquired characteristics can be passed on to the offspring. This is probably true. You can imagine my reaction. He qualifies that by saying that the major part of genetic behavior is different than Lysenko's theory. I suppose that's the good, uncertain, scientist talking. Feynman's last lecture was as noted above, admittedly a collection of ideas and not with a specific point. He titled it "The Unscientific Age". Little did he know that 50 years later it would get worse. On judging an idea, an example: The first one [example] has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions—that is, penetrating, interested, honest, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions—then he quickly gets stuck. Now he goes to the next campaigner who comes through. But it seems to me it must be a very difficult problem, because for twelve, fifteen, twenty years people have been struggling with it, and people say that they know how to solve the farm problem. And it must be a hard problem. So the way that I intend to solve the farm problem is to gather around me a lot of people who know something about it, to look at all the experience that we have had with this problem before, to take a certain amount of time at it, and then to come to some conclusion in a reasonable way about it. Now such a man would never get anywhere in this country, I think. It's never been tried, anyway. I have direct experience with this. I gave the second answer in an interview. Not what the hiring authority was looking for, or wanting. And in today's politics, baldfaced lies are preferred by a certain minority of the electorate to anyone who honestly says we have to put in some work. Asking how we get new ideas, he answers "by analogy" and then illustrates First, we take witch doctors. The witch doctor says he knows how to cure. There are spirits inside which are trying to get out. You have to blow them out with an egg, and so on. Put a snakeskin on and take quinine from the bark of a tree. The quinine works. He knows more about it than anyone else. Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course. If you look at all of the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how long it takes to get one idea after the other, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and the pulls, I tell you they can't all be there. It's too much for one brain or a few brains to have cooked up in such a short time. However, I remind you that if you're in the tribe, there's nobody else to go to. Okay, I quoted this because his analogy of psychoanalysts to witch doctors was a gem. And damn if he isn't spot on: so much mumbo jumbo in such a comparatively short in the grand humanity scheme of things amount of time. So, I whetted my appetite and now need to read more substance from the great physicist. Feb 17, Mohamed al-Jamri rated it liked it. This book is a short read. It is based on three-part public lecture given by Feynman in in which he talked about various topics. In general they're enjoyable, especially those that deal with science, but he also speaks about politics. He is rather cautious in this part and only shyly says that science can erode religion, because it encourages doubt. This is understandable in the time these lectures were given when in the United State atheism was equated with Communism which was seen as the enemy, which takes us to the next point.. Of course as with many American's Feyman fails to criticize his own country's interventions in other countries of the world. He equates the both, which is a big mistake in my opinion, but again psychiatry was new back them and the reputation of psychoanalysis was all-over it. It was hard for non-specialists to know the difference. When I read a book for someone like Richard Feynman, the first things jumps to my mind is how lucky were his students. I wish I could meet someone like him in person. I could listen to him talk for hours. In this book, Feynman talks about the relationship between science and people. These were three lectures presented by Professor Feynman at California Institute University, in In the first lecture, he talks about the uncertainty of science. Everything about science is uncertain; the scientif When I read a book for someone like Richard Feynman, the first things jumps to my mind is how lucky were his students. Everything about science is uncertain; the scientific findings themselves, the purposes of the scientific researches, and the consequences of the science development. The second lecture is about the uncertainty of values. He compares the scientific findings to the religious and moral values. He means by that, that despite the development of science, but people are still following the power of economy and strategical leadership, and not necessarily the value of the scientific findings. Richard Feynman is a very fine physicist, but he is also a very fine philosopher. Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: Very Good: A book that does not look new and has been read but is in excellent condition. No obvious damage to the cover, with the dust jacket if applicable included for hard covers. May be very minimal identifying marks on the inside cover. Very minimal wear and tear. See all condition definitions - opens in a new window or tab Read more about the condition. Shipping and handling. The seller has not specified a shipping method to Germany. Contact the seller - opens in a new window or tab and request shipping to your location. Shipping cost cannot be calculated. Please enter a valid ZIP Code. Shipping to: United States. No additional import charges at delivery! This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Learn more - opens in a new window or tab. There are 1 items available. Please enter a number less than or equal to 1. Select a valid country. Please enter 5 or 9 numbers for the ZIP Code. Handling time. Taxes may be applicable at checkout. Return policy. Refer to eBay Return policy for more details. You are covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee if you receive an item that is not as described in the listing. Payment details. Payment methods. Other offers may also be available. Interest will be charged to your account from the purchase date if the balance is not paid in full within 6 months. Minimum monthly payments are required. Subject to credit approval. See terms. Back to home page Return to top. Back to home page. Listed in category:. Email to friends Share on Facebook - opens in a new window or tab Share on Twitter - opens in a new window or tab Share on Pinterest - opens in a new window or tab Add to Watchlist. Opens image gallery Image not available Photos not available for this variation. Very Good: A book that does not look new and has been read but is in excellent condition. Change country: -Select- United States There are 1 items available.

https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4644405/normal_60201660b952b.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/f3f48c44-8b95-4893-89f2-232e9a51c62f/strafverteidigung-im-nationalsozialismus-283.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9590879/UploadedFiles/42156A35-CBC4-FF5D-CF61-DD36EC62EAAD.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/e757e819-27ed-4c93-93c7-6b6cd3439285/legende-seit-oktober-2010-ein-geschenk-fur-legendare- menschen120-zeiliges-notizbuchjournal-15x23-977.pdf