Richard Feynman and the Philosophers

[BaalChatzaf]

Please have a look at this:

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Sum Ergo Cogitabo]

This is a gem. Richard Feynman tends to very good.

[George H. Smith]

It is good to see Feynman ridicule those "dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with." Let us hope that those who say dopey philosophical things in the name of science take note.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

After spending years collaborating on what he describes as a ground breaking new work on physics, Leonard Peikoff said he’d never heard of Richard Feynman (see Neil’s piece on the McCaskey imbroglio). So lookout for the upcoming ARI sponsored book on bongo playing, lacunae abound.

[Xray]

After spending years collaborating on what he describes as a ground breaking new work on physics, Leonard Peikoff said he’d never heard of Richard Feynman (see Neil’s piece on the McCaskey imbroglio).

How on earth can someone have collaborated on a "groundbreaking work of physics" and not know about Richard Feynman?

It is good to see Feynman ridicule those "dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with." Let us hope that those who say dopey philosophical things in the name of science take note.

The problem is: Who are we to know that those "dopey philosophical things in the name of science" are dopey? Don't you think it possible that individuals who say those "dopey" things may simply be lightyears ahead in grasping the depth of an issue?

"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough."

Niels Bohr

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html

Edited September 25, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

It is good to see Feynman ridicule those "dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with." Let us hope that those who say dopey philosophical things in the name of science take note.

The problem is: Who are we to know that those "dopey philosophical things in the name of science" are dopey? Don't you think it possible that individuals who say those "dopey" things may simply be lightyears ahead in grasping the depth of an issue?

Who are we to know? You sound like a villain from one of Rand's novels. Or like some medieval theologian.

I use my own judgment to decide such matters. Whose judgment do you use?

Ghs