RP Feynman Interview
March 4th, 2007 by 
soulster
Drunkentune has done a good job articulating his own naturalism. I thought it might be interesting to hear from a renouned pyschist and reluctant Noble laureate on the matter. I’ve posted here a Google educational video of some interviews of this interesting man, his contributions to physics, and his view of how life ought to be lived [49 mins]:
To me, Feynman’s interviews are very human. He is an intergrated person, as much “being” his science as “doing” his science. I think one can see clearly how his entire philosophy of life has affected his pursuit of “knowing”, as he would say, in the context of a joyous irreverence.
I was wondering, among both those who like naturalism and those who don’t, what do you think of Feynman’s view of life, of the pursuit of knowledge, etc? I like the guy, though there is much that I do not agree with in what he says. I think I’ll reserve any further comments until I’ve heard for more of our readers on his ideas and philosophy.
Posted in epistemology, naturalism, philosophical issues | 
March 5th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Thanks for the video!
A good deal of the second half of my series on naturalism, Naturalism, pt. II, has a similar bent to the last few minutes of the video. I wrote it before I had a chance to watch, and it should be posted sometime tomorrow.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:04 am
His way of teaching science reminds me of the show on television which I grew up with as a kid. It was called “Why Is It So” and featured a man called Professor Julius Sumner Miller. He looked like acrazy cross between an Australian Farmer and Einstein. But he sure did know how to teach physics. And it always started from the premise of “Why Is It So?.”
For those who are interested, some of the footgae to the shows can be viewed here.
“Watch, watch it now… watch!”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/whyisitso/
(It was hearing Feynman’s description of his father teaching him about inertia, which reminded me of this.)
March 5th, 2007 at 9:28 am
“When we go to investigate nature we shouldn’t pre-decide what it’s all about.”
That’s what methodological naturalism is, pre-deciding what nature is all about.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Brian,
I suggest reading Naturalism, pt. I, An Intermission, and pt. II before you say such a thing.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
beepbeep:
Thanks for the link. Incidentally, this guy looks like my late grandfather Roy. I like how raw this footage is. Reminds me of a few of my science teachers growing up who, unscripted, spiraled around sometimes coherently, sometimes lost in a fervor of excitement over the wonder of it all.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I’d like to point out something where I think Feynman is “breaking with the faith”, so to speak, as far as a purely naturalistic worldview and methodology. He talks frequently about “knowing”, and seems to philosophically believe that only under the condition of understanding something from its basic naturalistic principles after adequate testing does someone “know” it. It is apparent that his epistemology is weighted heavily on scientic method and mechanical or mathematical reductionism. Scientific method is dependent heavily on process — that is where the objection over creationism as psuedo-science comes from — if you do not do the process in the correct order, you have compromised the results.
About 32 minutes into the program, Feynman begins talking about quark theory and some of the current problems of quantum physics. One of the biggest issues is dealing with the behavior of the quarks and what exactly holds them together to form other particles. He says the equations to deal with this were “guessed at by using principles by such beauty and simplicity…” [34:41]. He assures us these aren’t arbitrary, but are, in fact, very determined (although how many different kinds of quarks are arbitrary). This means aesthetics of a mathematical nature are in play (which is one key component to my epistemology).
Likewise, Feynman later points out a problem that when one fires a proton at an atom under the right energy (mathematically determined) for quarks to be released, you get hadrons instead (which according to the theory are conbinations of quarks). This, Feynman says, has led to a unique problem in physics:
Feynman is pointing out the current problem in modern physics. He takes string theorists to task for making up how something looks and then trying to explain how everything conforms to it. But he is doing the same thing, although he describes it differently and with less flair then “wreckless string theorists”. I don’t wish to criticize Feynman for this. I just want to point out that the scientific method he is using is more fluid than what’s on paper and is more cyclical and imginative than formal naturalism portrays.
I think physics has unique culture: a language (mathematics, which Feynman points out must be understood in order to even participate in the conversation), a morality (the method), and a story (quantum theory). In many ways this has had to be constructed in order to promote the science. But what it has done is create a metaphysical quest that doesn’t play strictly by the original rules (the method) because the original rules are insufficient to the task.
This is why I argue that the humanities are the center of a reliable epistemology, not the natural sciences. If we must create cultures and practice imagination to explore our world, than we must always be attempting to understand ourselves on deeper levels. Our quest to understand the “natural world” is external and marginal, and is interpreted and controled by the internal experience. Therefore the two must be in conversation. I think it’s a personal mistake that Feynman has demoted the social sciences and humanities (he says he doesn’t like the humanities very much). I think this shows some of Feynman’s limitations.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Oddly enough, I was reading a bit on Feynman a week ago, and just recently connected the two last names as I typed out this quote. How silly of me to miss it!
March 5th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
This is why I advocate what Leslie Newbigin calls “a wider rationality”. It’s not that I want to throw out a rational view of the universe, nor do I discredit that science can give answers. It’s just that I see the “guessing” on the broader human spectrum that has little boundary between those guessing in naturalistic pursuits and those guessing in other areas. To me, this is why the social sciences, humanities, and religion all have something to say.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Interesting video. Here is another link to an interview with Antony Flew, noted philosopher, who has recently moved over from atheism to theism: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm
I find his comments about my faith, Christianity, to be of interest. He seems to have some of the same conclusions I’ve come to, though he stops short of my response. Especially his ideas that the best attested miracle is the resurrection of Christ and that the best evidence for an afterlife is the reports of near death experiencers.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Flew is a deist, and his reasons, as he admits, are silly in light of the facts, but still continues to quasi-believe.
Both quotes are from the same source.
It’s sad.