[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)