[henrydark]

I hope this isn't received too badly on HN, but Feynman was way too smug sometimes. This speech is essentially a philosophy of science piece, at the intellectual stage of at least one hundred years prior, and probably more like three hundred.

It's too bad that he so diminished philosophy of science, and at the same time put so much undeveloped thought and prose into it.

[Animats]

> way too smug sometimes

Feynman was lucky enough to be a physicist in an era when there was much new, experimentally testable physics. Experimentalists discovered new phenomena. Theorists could propose theories, which were then confirmed or rejected quickly. Most results were clear, not near the noise threshold. The field progressed rapidly. Physics was finding, and had found, a set of concise rules that the universe consistently obeyed. Plus, they won the war. Physicists of that era could afford to be smug.

Today, physicists are still banging their head against the wall on dark matter and string theory. Both ideas are not directly testable. Trying to find the foundations is not going well.

[mandmandam]

I'll bite.

> way too smug sometimes

Immediately after:

> This speech is essentially a philosophy of science piece, at the intellectual stage of at least one hundred years prior, and probably more like three hundred.

Bruh.

Apart from the hypocrisy there, the fact is Feynman did science. He did more science than Popper, Kuhn, and Hume put together. He understood it on a level deeper than >99% of other scientists, and >99.9% of philosophers.

That he did so with a "three hundred year" out of date view doesn't really reflect well on PoS's utility for actual scientists.

Let people who are that capable and accomplished have a blind spot once in a while. What is this trend of cutting legend's ankles gonna accomplish for anybody.

[bonoboTP]

It's a weird beef between science and philosophy. It doesn't really make all that much sense. Philosophers arent on one team versus the scientists. If you read any philosopher, they'll vehemently contradict other (prior or contemporary) philosophers, passionately arguing for their view of things.

Its a sort of elitism and inferiority complex.

The fact that Feynman was working through some "naive" positivist worldview and yet achieved such success just rubs it in more that a talented scientist needs philosophers about as much as a bird needs ornithologists to know how to build its nest.

When talent, curiosity and integrity come together in this way, it doesn't need some philosophers musings and rulebooks to do great.

[mistermann]

> The fact that Feynman was working through some "naive" positivist worldview and yet achieved such success just rubs it in more that a talented scientist needs philosophers about as much as a bird needs ornithologists to know how to build its nest.

How's that global warming thing coming along?

Let me guess: it isn't relevant?

[bonoboTP]

Your snark is unwarranted and your post is vague. State your point clearly. I don't know how Feynman (and his beef with the philosophy of science) is connected to global warming "coming along" or not.

[mistermann]

Your self-confidence and entitlement are impressive.

[Tainnor]

Historically, many scientists have dabbled in philosophy and many philosophers have done some science. Some were know for contributions in both areas (as well as mathematics).

Feynman may not have cared about philosophy, but plenty of other scientists did and do. Plus, philosophy doesn't necessarily have to justify itself in terms of "utility", because that just assumes that everything needs to have some ulterior motive and can't just be enjoyed for its own sake.

[mandmandam]

It seems like you believe that since I'm defending Feynman, I must be attacking philosophy somehow. But it's not an either/or situation.

[JKCalhoun]

I agree Feynman was often smug. It's annoying but I forgive him because I too am smug from time to time. Perhaps he was aware of it within himself as well.

[LudwigNagasena]

What is undeveloped about the ideas in the article from the POV of philosophy of science?