Some kind of 80s TV documentary gives us an inspiring interview with Nobel Laureate (though he is quite clear on how much he disregards this attribute) Richard Feynman. For an exceptional physicist, perhaps a genius, he is remarkably gifted communicator and educator. He describes his intellectual development as driven by the "Pleasure of Finding Things Out" which he also considers to be the "real prize" which the Nobel committee subsequently attempted to usurp.
He specifically highlights two issues with "knowing". Firstly he differentiates between knowing the name for something and knowing what is truly is. Secondly he exaggerates the need to understand what you don't know as opposed to what you do know. He describes the concept of inertia, that something not moving tends to remains as such, and something which is moving tends to carry on moving, until there is some impact from external forces. However, he is clear that knowing the name inertia, while valuable, means nothing about understanding what it is ... its only a label. And in addition, nobody really knows what inertia truly is. But that is not a bad thing, in fact if you enjoy the journey then its a great thing.
Not knowing things doesn't frighten him, being lost in a vast universe as an insignificant actor is not a problem. In particular he argues that this attitude defuses the need to cling to an answer to fill the gap, mysticism he calls it, though he chooses not to chase religion any further in this instance. However, he does discuss what he calls psuedo science, and the way he does it is fascinating. Those that make claims about, for instance, organic food and various qualities that the food possesses. Do they know that these qualities exist? Have they done the work to ensure that they do? Because he knows, due to his considerable experience as a physicist, how difficult it is to know something, "I mean really know something". And how easy it is to make mistakes. His hypercritical approach to knowledge and professional scepticism is extremely valuable. In fact he argues that he finds it hard to understand how a scientist could use mystical answers to these questions if he follows the scientific method he claims to. Dawkins later hammers this point as hard as he can arguing that the God hypothesis is just another hypothesis to be tested with no special characteristics, and if it remains unproven must be abandoned. But Feynman doesn't and prefers to leave it there. I think that is immensely valuable in this context as it opens the question to be considered rather than pushing an ideology. It is also then consistent with his argument that not knowing is the cornerstone of the philosophy, and as such proposing certainty that God doesn't exist, as Dawkins effectively does (though he puts himself at a 6.9 on a 7-sized scale and so really is an agnostic), would undermine the clarity of that message. Rather the better takeaway is not an irreligious positive but a scrutiny of pseudo science whether that is homeopathy or psychic readings.
Not knowing things doesn't frighten him, being lost in a vast universe as an insignificant actor is not a problem. In particular he argues that this attitude defuses the need to cling to an answer to fill the gap, mysticism he calls it, though he chooses not to chase religion any further in this instance. However, he does discuss what he calls psuedo science, and the way he does it is fascinating. Those that make claims about, for instance, organic food and various qualities that the food possesses. Do they know that these qualities exist? Have they done the work to ensure that they do? Because he knows, due to his considerable experience as a physicist, how difficult it is to know something, "I mean really know something". And how easy it is to make mistakes. His hypercritical approach to knowledge and professional scepticism is extremely valuable. In fact he argues that he finds it hard to understand how a scientist could use mystical answers to these questions if he follows the scientific method he claims to. Dawkins later hammers this point as hard as he can arguing that the God hypothesis is just another hypothesis to be tested with no special characteristics, and if it remains unproven must be abandoned. But Feynman doesn't and prefers to leave it there. I think that is immensely valuable in this context as it opens the question to be considered rather than pushing an ideology. It is also then consistent with his argument that not knowing is the cornerstone of the philosophy, and as such proposing certainty that God doesn't exist, as Dawkins effectively does (though he puts himself at a 6.9 on a 7-sized scale and so really is an agnostic), would undermine the clarity of that message. Rather the better takeaway is not an irreligious positive but a scrutiny of pseudo science whether that is homeopathy or psychic readings.
These scientific communicators are rare, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Feynmann of course is significantly most illustrious than those names. As a result this film is essential viewing in particular for children or students with an inquisitive mindset. It is not dissimilar to the Fog of War in opening a window into a way of thinking and a context around what might otherwise be cold hard facts via a highly engaged mind looking to share. As an educator he is clear that different people have different stimuli, he would not be able to state a method that generically works. Instead each person needs their own route to learn. Again his major lesson is not knowing, rather than knowing. "I don't know the world very well, but that's what I think"
8 / 10
Available on youtube!
