[HN Gopher] Feynman's advice to W&M student resonates 45 years l... ___________________________________________________________________ Feynman's advice to W&M student resonates 45 years later (2020) Author : andrewl Score : 92 points Date : 2022-02-21 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wm.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wm.edu) | sitkack wrote: | > She said she never had any trouble initiating contact with | authority figures when she had some business to discuss. "We're | all just people," she says. | gyc wrote: | A professor of mine once told me about when he was in school he | studied a book written by a famous expert in the field and | found a bunch of errors. So he wrote back to the author with | the error and, after some back and forth correspondence, the | author offered him a job after graduation. So that was how he | first got his foot in the door in the field. | phkahler wrote: | I've found the same. If you contact an authority with serious | questions about the subject they are an authority on, they will | generally respond in a positive way. Keep in mind, this is very | different than kids asking a math PhD for help with algebra | homework - algebra is not their specialty and there is no | reason to contact them specifically about such things. | sitkack wrote: | I have also had similar experience cold-emailing domain | authorities. I spent days writing 10s of words, double | checking my facts, doing my homework and have gotten a | response everytime. They are excited that someone is reading | their work, thinking about it and then having the gumption to | contact them. I think it is actually quite rare. | sydthrowaway wrote: | Hmm.. crank? | DoreenMichele wrote: | Take-home test in a survey course for nonmajors. And she | referenced a book with a mistake. | | In my thirties, wanting to test out of college algebra, I bought | some math software to do drills and refresh my rusty high school | math and the software had errors. It was fine for my purposes | because I recognized the mistakes, but I was also homeschooling | and I told my kids it probably wasn't a good resource for them | because it has too many errors, so it wasn't something they | should use for math practice. They didn't know enough math to | recognize the errors and would have learned wrong. | | People make mistakes. This kind of scenario is always a | possibility for an outsider with insufficient background | knowledge to go "Wait ...that doesn't seem right." and, instead, | just goes "But (famous expert) said it, so it _must_ be true. " | erulabs wrote: | It saddens me to think that a polite exchange in which all | parties are incorrect, come to a better conclusion, and leave | amicably is so rare as to be remembered across a span of time | greater than my entire lifetime. | | Good conversations are so rare. It has been a long time, for me. | mewse-hn wrote: | This exchange would be non-notable if it weren't for Feynman's | stature and that he was basically called out by a musician. His | familiarity with academia shines through by agreeing the answer | deserves no marks, and his candor by stating that both of them | were wrong. | gnicholas wrote: | Related question: I am reading a book by an author whom I know | socially. The book is very good, but I have noticed a few minor | typos. I also noticed that one example is explained backwards -- | that is, it mixes up the causes and effects for two phenomena. I | have not independently researched the phenomena, but based on the | earlier description (which is logical and I believe to be | correct), the conclusion of a section is clearly mistaken. | | Is it appropriate or helpful to point out any of these issues? | The book came out a couple years ago, and I imagine other people | who know the author may have pointed them out already. I don't | want to make him feel bad (no one likes the bearer of bad news), | but if it were me I would want to be told so that future print | runs and digital editions could be corrected. (The book is | popular and will likely remain relevant for years or even | decades.) | | Perhaps I should shoot him an email from an anonymous email | address? | AussieWog93 wrote: | >Is it appropriate or helpful to point out any of these issues? | | Only you can answer that question, as none of us here know | them! Some people really appreciate it when you point out their | mistakes (privately), others will hold a grudge against you for | life. | xemdetia wrote: | Don't use an anonymous email. Just email them from an account | you use and see what turns up, if it is such a frequent | question the author in this day an age could post an errata to | their website. They might even have a reworked bit of prose for | a second edition or some-related-next-project. The only people | I wouldn't email are the people that clearly don't want to be | found from a simple search. | | It's just an email, don't overthink it. Don't write a rebuttal | essay, just express what you are reading and why it doesn't | line up for you and send it along. Maybe there's something | you're missing or maybe this is a bit of manuscript that was | revised a few times and now doesn't line up perfectly. It's no | different than going to a friend and asking if they can make | heads or tails from it. _They wrote a book to share something | they found interesting_ people asking questions and | clarifications is what I would think to be one of the few true | rewards. | kmill wrote: | They'd probably be delighted to hear that you're reading the | book (and it wouldn't hurt to mention that you think it's | good!) | | You could mention that, and ask about the causality problem, | why it seems backwards compared to the earlier description, and | how you've not researched it yourself and would appreciate | clarification. You can also mention that you've noticed some | minor typos and ask whether they'd appreciate them for a future | printing. I think it's safe to say authors would rather have | mistakes not continue to be reprinted. | 8bitsrule wrote: | Reminds me of the old advice that you can be safe in your car if | it's hit by lightning . There _are_ some _ifs_ : | | https://www.arnoldclark.com/newsroom/239-how-to-stay-safe-in... | stakkur wrote: | This article reminds me of a Carl Sagan quote: | | _" Arguments from authority carry little weight - authorities | have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the | future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there | are no authorities; at most, there are experts."_ | draw_down wrote: | jancsika wrote: | > Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your | answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss' law. You | should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, | and not authorities. You also read the book correctly and | understood it. I made a mistake, so the book is wrong. I probably | was thinking of a grounded conducting sphere, or else of the fact | that moving the charges around in different places inside does | not affect things on the outside. I am not sure how I did it, but | I goofed. And you goofed, too, for believing me. | | I've heard of "non-apologies," which are sneaky ways of sounding | like one is taking responsibility and apologizing without | actually apologizing or taking responsibility. | | But this is the opposite-- Fenyman takes zero responsibility for | having led the student astray, and in fact chastises the reader | for appealing to his own authority. At the same time, he gives | _evidence_ for why he should not be trusted as an authority-- he | goofed and doesn 't even know why! | | It's like a variation of an old one-liner comedy insult, | something like: "I got news for you, we could _both_ do better! " | | Anyhow, I like it. | lisper wrote: | But all this begs the question. Why should we believe Gauss's | law? | | No one has the resources to verify the whole of science through | first-hand experience so at some point you have no choice but | to trust someone. | pdonis wrote: | _> Why should we believe Gauss 's law?_ | | Because experiments show that it's correct. | | _> No one has the resources to verify the whole of science | through first-hand experience_ | | Courses in science commonly include actual experiments, | either done by the professor while students watch, or done by | the students themselves in labs, precisely to _give_ the | students first-hand experience in the scientific phenomena | being studied in the course. | | _> at some point you have no choice but to trust someone_ | | You may have to trust other people for first-hand | observations of things you didn't observe yourself. But that | isn't what's involved here. Here the student had a | theoretical law whose consequences she was perfectly capable | of working out for herself. She did not have to trust anyone | for that. | | In this particular case, the student even _saw_ the problem | with Feynman 's statement: her letter says, in reference to | the statement in Feynman's book that turned out to be wrong: | "This was confusing, as it seemed to contradict all your | previous statements." So why did she base her exam answer on | the statement she found "confusing"? She should have thought | it through for herself. | [deleted] | foldr wrote: | Even with theory it's not reasonable to expect someone to | verify things "all the way down". For example, it's | reasonable for a beginner in physics to trust that calculus | works without fully understanding its foundations. | b215826 wrote: | I don't think people in this thread have realized this, | but the issue here is about an application of Gauss's | law, not the law itself. If you write in a math test | "d^2/dx^2 sin(x) = sin(x)" and complain that you have not | been awarded points because a famous book on calculus has | this equation in it, then you are appealing to authority | instead of making an argument. | foldr wrote: | Right, but if you read the letter, the student isn't | really _complaining_. She 's just asking Feynman for an | explanation of what the paragraph means. | | Another relevant details is that "the class was a survey | course for non-majors". | b215826 wrote: | That paragraph is wrong. So it's pointless to wonder why | Feynman wrote what he wrote (that is unless you are | interested in the man himself). She specifically had a PS | in the letter where she said she had "a devious motive in | writing to [Feynman] because on the exam [she] answered | with the explanation that [Feynman's] book gave". I'm | sure Feynman would've had his share of experience with | grade grubbers and probably (and a bit unkindly) assumed | that this woman was one. She also clearly refused to | believe her professor when he explained the problem to | her. Yes, Feynman could have been more kinder and more | charitable with his time, but if you have worked in | academia, then you'll also know that the vast majority of | professors would completely ignore correspondence of this | sort from an undergraduate. | foldr wrote: | The student wasn't sure if the paragraph was wrong or if | she'd misunderstood what Feynman was saying in it. So she | asked him. | | >She also clearly refused to believe her professor when | he explained the problem to her. | | There's nothing in the letter to support this conclusion. | But in any case, you can't coherently criticize the | student both for believing Feynman and for not believing | her professor! I thought the point was that she wasn't | supposed to 'believe' anyone. | | And yes, of course the student was hoping that Feynman | might have turned out to be right after all so that she | could get some extra points on the test. So what? | b215826 wrote: | > _The student wasn 't sure if the paragraph was wrong or | if she'd misunderstood what Feynman was saying in it. So | she asked him._ | | And he answered that question. | | > _I thought the point was that she wasn 't supposed to | 'believe' anyone._ | | I am presuming that her professor actually showed her why | she was wrong, instead of asking her to take his word for | it. | | > _And yes, of course the student was hoping that Feynman | might have turned out to be right after all so that she | could get some extra points on the test. So what?_ | | You don't get it. Gauss's law is a very very elementary | law (usually taught in high school). Her professor would | have most definitely explained why he took off points | from her exam. There are two explanations now as to why | she included that PS: i) she didn't understand her | professor's explanation, and hence also did not | understand Gauss's law properly, ii) she was grade | grubbing. I cannot sympathize with her for (i) since she | most definitely did not make an effort to understand her | professor's argument. Also, W&M is a large research | university with multiple physics professors and graduate | students and it's unlikely that no one would have been | able to help her with this. So she clearly didn't try | hard enough to understand Gauss's law and that's not | Feynman's fault. And I really cannot sympathize with her | if it's case (ii). | pdonis wrote: | _> it's reasonable for a beginner in physics to trust | that calculus works without fully understanding its | foundations._ | | Even the beginner doesn't have to "trust" that calculus | works. He can verify for himself that using calculus to | manipulate equations in the theory yields predictions | which are confirmed by experiment. | | The main area where I see that "trust" would be required | in science is reporting of raw data directly obtained | from experiments that other people run. Yes, everyone | else has to trust that the person who is reporting that | data actually ran the experiment they claim to have run | and recorded that exact data from that experiment in its | entirety--that they didn't make up the data, or massage | it, or cherry pick only certain runs, etc. That is why, | when scientists are found to have violated this trust, | the penalties are typically severe. | | Other than that, though, you don't have to "trust" | anything in science blindly. Whether a particular set of | data is consistent with a particular set of theoretical | predictions is something that can be verified | independently. And since theoretical predictions are just | mathematical derivations from certain stated axioms, | those can also be verified independently. So no one ever | has to just take someone else's word about those things. | linuxhansl wrote: | There's nothing to believe, really. If, and as long as, it | correctly explains experimental evidence we can use it to | make predictions. | abdullahkhalids wrote: | A student would be optimally correct in trusting authority as | far as believing the axioms of the electromagnetic theory | goes. However, as ones builds more and more theorems and | results based on those axioms, the student should stop | believing in authority and start verifying that all claimed | results are consistent with the axioms. | pdonis wrote: | _> A student would be optimally correct in trusting | authority as far as believing the axioms of the | electromagnetic theory goes._ | | You don't have to "believe" the axioms. You can test them, | by testing whether the experimental predictions derived | from them are confirmed or not. | b215826 wrote: | > _But all this begs the question. Why should we believe | Gauss 's law?_ | | This particular incident had nothing to do with the validity | of Gauss's law, which is nothing but a restatement of | Coulomb's law in electrostatics, and something that has been | extensively verified in experiments. Feynman's presentation | of Gauss's law is crystal clear. The issue in question was an | _application_ of Gauss 's law. Feynman likely goofed up (like | most of us do) because he didn't think twice and went by his | intuition. And he was absolutely right to criticize the | student -- saying that something is written in famous book X | written by famous author Y is completely irrelevant in | science if you cannot make a good argument for why it is | right. This is different from many social "sciences" where | people often make such claims. | foldr wrote: | This isn't a really a fair reading of the student's letter. | It's clear that she was puzzled by the apparent (and in | fact actual) contradiction between the erroneous paragraph | and the rest of the book. She just asked Feynman for an | explanation of what the paragraph meant. It does seem | reasonable to give Feynman the benefit of the doubt and | assume that there might possibly be a non-erroneous | interpretation of the paragraph in question. | | I think Feynman was getting on a favorite hobby horse about | not trusting authority and reading the letter a little | uncharitably. | hirundo wrote: | Nullius in verba. | pdonis wrote: | _> Fenyman takes zero responsibility for having led the student | astray_ | | Sure he did. He said he goofed. | | _> and in fact chastises the reader for appealing to his own | authority_ | | And he's right. In science, there is no such thing as appeal to | authority. If the student thought her answer was right, she | should have produced an _argument_ for why it was right--and of | course she couldn 't because her answer was wrong. She should | not have appealed to an authority. | b215826 wrote: | > _he gives evidence for why he should not be trusted as an | authority-- he goofed and doesn 't even know why!_ | | Your comment is very hilarious since Gauss's law is high-school | physics. So Feynman would have _clearly_ known how he goofed | up. | xhkkffbf wrote: | Sort of surprised to read this. I thought the verdict was pretty | clear. Feynman was canceled. W&M putting out a press release like | this is inviting Feynman to give a talk or a commencement | address. | jcrash wrote: | ? Richard Feynman died in 1988. | b215826 wrote: | The commenter is probably referring to the various attempts | [1] (some successful) to tarnish Feynman's image since his | death. I agree that the comment is completely irrelevant to | this particular discussion though. | | [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=feynman+sexist ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-21 23:00 UTC)