# Feynman on 'Why Questions' | Evolution denialism



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 15, 2015)

Take a look at this interview with Richard Feynman:



It's plain to see that he is exasperated by the fact that the interviewer essentially asked him 'How do magnets work, amirite?' Feynman then does a pretty good job of explaining how although scientists have a pretty good idea how magnetism works among other things that we find fascinating, it is difficult to explain the reasoning behind it to a layperson simply because a layperson does not have the background knowledge requisite to understanding the phenomena. This very much reminds me of the problem scientists such as Richard Dawkins encounter frequently when attempting to debate evolution with creationists, and my own experience with briefly discussing the matter (although I am by no means an expert in evolutionary biology as Dawkins is) here and on other forums. Do you think a lack of understanding (and perhaps desire to understand) the evidence behind evolution is a major factor in the frequency  with which religious people feel the need to contradict on the authority of their religious texts the findings of science? It seems that even when evidence is presented it is simply ignored because considering that evidence as potentially valid may be dangerous to the worldview they hold. To be fair here I don't believe religious people are stupid, many are extremely intelligent even though they seem mistaken to me (Evergreen comes to mind here =D), but I don't understand logically how facts such as evolution can be so vehemently denied by laypersons unless they simply do not have the framework in place to understand the claims scientists in a given field are making.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

So, basically, "Just trust us one this"... right?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> So, basically, "Just trust us one this"... right?



That is essentially what feynman is saying to the interviewer about magnetism. It isn't that he cannot explain it, or that he doesn't have good reason to believe that he understands the phenomenon well, it is simply that to learn real 'why' answers  to that question requires a much deeper drive to understand it as to really only be plausible to explain it to a student of physics who already has the 'framework' (or background knowledge) to understand it, or someone who has an otherwise more than passing interest. It seems that if magnetism weren't easily observable.. or even worse if it somehow conflicted with a given individuals religious beliefs, it may be just as prone to denial by laypeople as evolution is at present.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> So, basically, "Just trust us one this"... right?



Anyone can get the answer to that question if they want.

Do you know why magnets repel and attract?  I bet you do. If not, would you like to?  Would you believe me if I told you?  Would you believe it if a Rabbi told you?  Would you believe it if a preacher told you?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> That is essentially what feynman is saying to the interviewer about magnetism. It isn't that he cannot explain it, or that he doesn't have good reason to believe that he understands the phenomenon well, it is simply that to learn real 'why' answers  to that question requires a much deeper drive to understand it as to really only be plausible to explain it to a student of physics who already has the 'framework' (or background knowledge) to understand it, or someone who has an otherwise more than passing interest. It seems that if magnetism weren't easily observable.. or even worse if it somehow conflicted with a given individuals religious beliefs, it may be just as prone to denial by laypeople as evolution is at present.



I've seen this interview before. Later, Feynman says "Scientists love not knowing," which is true, they do like the thrill of the chase; to gain more knowledge than they had yesterday, even if there's no explicit purpose behind the gaining: It's what they do. However, one thing scientists very much do not like, is to be reminded of their ignorance; this distaste is particularly acute if the questioner is a 'laymen' and the scientist is one that has reached a certain level of acclaim, as Feynman had. That's what you see in this clip. Feynman isn't 'winning a battle against irrationality' nor is he 'displaying some great insight', he's just trying to cover his own ignorance. We don't really 'know' what magnetism is much like we don't 'know' what energy truly is, and that doesn't change regardless if the person asking you the question just happens to be versed in Maxwell or Schrödinger or Einstein. Feynman could have simply explained that we haven't gotten that knowledge, and perhaps never will, or we may have it tomorrow. It only takes a deeper understanding to hold a conversation, but no deeper understanding was required on the part of the interviewer to answer this question.

So far as laypeople not being able to question, it has been my experience; both personal, from those I know, and those I've heard about; it could also be said that people of a more refined conversation can't question either.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I've seen this interview before. Later, Feynman says "Scientists love not knowing," which is true, they do like the thrill of the chase; to gain more knowledge than they had yesterday, even if there's no explicit purpose behind the gaining: It's what they do. However, one thing scientists very much do not like, is to be reminded of their ignorance; this distaste is particularly acute if the questioner is a 'laymen' and the scientist is one that has reached a certain level of acclaim, as Feynman had. That's what you see in this clip. Feynman isn't 'winning a battle against irrationality' nor is he 'displaying some great insight', he's just trying to cover his own ignorance. We don't really 'know' what magnetism is much like we don't 'know' what energy truly is, and that doesn't change regardless if the person asking you the question just happens to be versed in Maxwell or Schrödinger or Einstein. Feynman could have simply explained that we haven't gotten that knowledge, and perhaps never will, or we may have it tomorrow. It only takes a deeper understanding to hold a conversation, but no deeper understanding was required on the part of the interviewer to answer this question.
> 
> So far as laypeople not being able to question, it has been my experience; both personal, from those I know, and those I've heard about; it could also be said that people of a more refined conversation can't question either.




I though I clearly heard him say that we don't know what the relationship of electricity to gravity is.  What more do you want?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I though I clearly heard him say that we don't know what the relationship of electricity to gravity is.  What more do you want?



It's not what I want him to do, it's what I don't want him to do. He was 'exasperated' because this 'laymen' dare to ask such a reasonable question, and then spoke in a way that, to me, came across as if offended. It was in poor form.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It's not what I want him to do, it's what I don't want him to do. He was 'exasperated' because this 'laymen' dare to ask such a reasonable question, and then spoke in a way that, to me, came across as if offended. It was in poor form.



Have you seen the full interview?  




He NEVER talks down to the interviewer.  Not ever.  For almost an hour and 10 minutes.  He's so excited to share what he knows.  In the Magnet example he explained it as best he could without a chalkboard, which I don't think the interviewer would have wanted him to do.

You seem to be suspicious of scientists.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

Here's a good one:


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

This is good too:


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> So, basically, "Just trust us one this"... right?


You know for a fact that man created the Bible and said "here this the word of God,  he told us what to say".
You don't seem to have a problem with "just trusting them on that".
Why not?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> It's not what I want him to do, it's what I don't want him to do. He was 'exasperated' because this 'laymen' dare to ask such a reasonable question, and then spoke in a way that, to me, came across as if offended. It was in poor form.



Perhaps I did him a disservice by posting this part without the context of the rest of the interview. He was not exasperated because the layman 'dare to ask such a reasonable question,' he was exasperated because the question was not one he could answer in the span of an interview with someone without much background knowledge on the subject (which even if the interviewer did have the background, the audiences that would watch the video very likely do not). I think Walt raises a good point.. why are you so skeptical of what you consider a scientist asking you to take something 'on faith' while holding a completely different standard for your religious beliefs that _explicitly_ rely on belief without proof as a virtue necessary to the practice of the religion?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Take a look at this interview with Richard Feynman:
> 
> 
> 
> It's plain to see that he is exasperated by the fact that the interviewer essentially asked him 'How do magnets work, amirite?' Feynman then does a pretty good job of explaining how although scientists have a pretty good idea how magnetism works among other things that we find fascinating, it is difficult to explain the reasoning behind it to a layperson simply because a layperson does not have the background knowledge requisite to understanding the phenomena. This very much reminds me of the problem scientists such as Richard Dawkins encounter frequently when attempting to debate evolution with creationists, and my own experience with briefly discussing the matter (although I am by no means an expert in evolutionary biology as Dawkins is) here and on other forums. Do you think a lack of understanding (and perhaps desire to understand) the evidence behind evolution is a major factor in the frequency  with which religious people feel the need to contradict on the authority of their religious texts the findings of science? It seems that even when evidence is presented it is simply ignored because considering that evidence as potentially valid may be dangerous to the worldview they hold. To be fair here I don't believe religious people are stupid, many are extremely intelligent even though they seem mistaken to me (Evergreen comes to mind here =D), but I don't understand logically how facts such as evolution can be so vehemently denied by laypersons unless they simply do not have the framework in place to understand the claims scientists in a given field are making.


I think you are under estimating the power or hold that religion can have on people. Their entire life, after life and view of the world they live in depends on it being true.
It's easy for us to "update" our thinking based on new discovery, evidence etc because we aren't giving up for example seeing our loved ones again in heaven.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Perhaps I did him a disservice by posting this part without the context of the rest of the interview. He was not exasperated because the layman 'dare to ask such a reasonable question,' he was exasperated because the question was not one he could answer in the span of an interview with someone without much background knowledge on the subject (which even if the interviewer did have the background, the audiences that would watch the video very likely do not). I think Walt raises a good point.. why are you so skeptical of what you consider a scientist asking you to take something 'on faith' while holding a completely different standard for your religious beliefs that _explicitly_ rely on belief without proof as a virtue necessary to the practice of the religion?



Science should not require faith, as has been pointed out here as far back as I've cared to look. As far as your question, I can't answer it with someone lacking the proper background knowledge. 

God has proven himself to me beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You know for a fact that man created the Bible and said "here this the word of God,  he told us what to say".
> You don't seem to have a problem with "just trusting them on that".
> Why not?



Man creates nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Science should not require faith, as has been pointed out here as far back as I've cared to look. As far as your question, I can't answer it with someone lacking the proper background knowledge.
> 
> God has proven himself to me beyond reasonable doubt.



Would you discuss this?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Man creates nothing.



Yeah and you think that because you are taking their word for it.
So my question remains. Why don't you have a problem with taking their word for it?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you discuss this?



I would, but not in terms you have the required knowledge to understand.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Man creates nothing.



I am sure glad you are wrong. It would have been a cold night and a long walk to work. Oh wait, I wouldn't have to work.

Oh wait, you are correct. My bad, I read it wrong. Man did create 'nothing'. Every God ever bowed to, sacrificed to, prayed to, etc. = Nothing...created by man.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I would, but not in terms you have the required knowledge to understand.



Try me.  Be as patient as Feynman.  Take all day to explain it. Use a chalkboard.  This could be the most important thing you'll ever do.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Science should not require faith, as has been pointed out here as far back as I've cared to look.



And it doesn't, that is the entire point of the comparison I was making.



> As far as your question, I can't answer it with someone lacking the proper background knowledge.



Consider me a student, a mind-picker of men if you will . Does the 'proper background knowledge' include having experienced a divine revelation as you seem to have? I've asked God to send me one repeatedly, so far no dice... I suspect it's because I didn't send a big enough seed to that televangelist a few years back...


----------

