The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts Of A Citizen-Scientist (2005) - Plot & Excerpts
The Meaning of it All is based on lectures given by Richard Feynman to lay audiences at the University of Washington, Seattle, over three nights in April 1963, on science and its relationship to social problems and religion. (All of Feynman's published books are similarly based on recordings of lectures or conversations.) It pains me to say anything negative about a book by Feynman but this is one that probably should never have been published, except as part of a "Complete Works" set. This is partly due to a lack of editorial cleanup, and partly because Feynman appears to have been in rare bad form for these talks. (Of course, this is only bad form by Feynman's standards; if this were the only book of Feynman's philosophy in the world then it would be a flawed masterpiece.)There's little material, if any, in this work that Feynman hasn't expressed elsewhere with far greater eloquence. In these lectures he makes a number of false starts and abrupt stops, and some minor errors most of which could easily have been corrected by an editor. At one point for instance, he uses "infinitesimal" when he obviously means to say "infinite." The only reason for leaving such mistakes intact is, I think, that the book was published posthumously and the publishers were afraid to touch Feynman's words without his approval. I'm sure that Feynman would have found that elevation of reverence over substance to be absurd. There's only one clear instance in the book in which an editor has touched the material; a parenthetical notation that Feynman had completed a sentence with a hand gesture instead of words.At another point, Feynman apologizes for his limited knowledge of world religions and expresses the hope that "Hindus and Arabs" wouldn't feel excluded by his references to the religion with which he was most familiar, Christianity (Feynman had been born to a Jewish family but was an atheist). It's very likely that he was either winking at the audience when he said that, laughing at his own provincialism, or that he simply misspoke. In either case, although this error is trivial and irrelevant to his arguments, its unnecessary inclusion will, I suspect, give some overly sensitive readers an excuse to dismiss his arguments as the product of ignorance.My recommendation to all but the most die-hard Feynman completists is to skip The Meaning of it all and instead pick up Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter and The Character of Physical Law. Surely You're Joking... is a collection of anecdotes reflecting Feynman's eclectic range of interests (nude portraiture, safecracking, bongo playing, hieroglyphic translating etc) and his singular outlook on life. QED and The Character of Physical Law are by far the deepest and yet the most accessible math-free science books that I've ever come across.
Originally published on my blog here in July 2001.These three lectures, about science, society, philosophy, religion and so on, were delivered in the early sixties but not published until after Feynman's death. They read as though they are basically transcriptions of more or less off the cuff speaking rather than as composed in written form for the book.Basically the theme of the talks is how science relates to society's other concerns, with interesting digressions on subjects like why politicians' promises can't be trusted (because real life situations are often too complex for sound bit answers). The sections where Feynman defines science and where he talks about religion are particularly interesting, but there are thought provoking ideas throughout.There are two - at least - disappointing aspects to the lectures. One is the occasional piece of naive American patriotism, endorsing the space race, for example, because it wouldn't do to let the Russians get too far ahead. This is more a product of the time and place than anything else, but it certainly dates what is said and reduces the impact of the more interesting bits.The other problem is more serious, and pervades the whole book. The general tone of the lectures is over-simplified, and has a tendency when written down rather than spoken to come over as patronising. Feynman was a great communicator, and I suspect this problem is a result of the lectures being transcribed from the oral to written medium without editing. The Meaning of It All is interesting, but could have been fascinating if intended to be a book from the start.
What do You think about The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts Of A Citizen-Scientist (2005)?
I respect Mr Feynman's intelligence and skill as a lecturer. His reputation makes me feel bad about giving this book only two stars. But this book isn't his best work. The three lectures in this book were given in 1963. It's interesting to speculate how his speech would be different if given today. In 1963 the lectures may have seemed more cutting edge. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about the relationship between religion and science. Well, he did a fine job describing the conflict between religion and science. Then he asked the question, "How can religion and science coexist without being a threat to each other?" His answer was, "I don't know." I suppose that shows he's smart enough to not wade into theology. But I was disappointed. One interesting thing he said is that there are some scientists who believe in God, but there aren't very many who have an image of God that matches that of their parents. Of course that's true of many non-scientists too.
—Clif Hostetler
El libro recupera las 3 conferencias que Feynman impartió en 1963 en la universidad de Washington para discutir la naturaleza de la ciencia, como método, como arreglo sistemático del conocimiento y como aplicaciones (tecnología, Feynman va más allá y asume su rol de ciudadano para cuestionar el lugar de la ciencia en la sociedad, en la creación y solución de problemas sociales y en su relación dentro de los grandes debates del hombre, sobre la moralidad o la religión. Feynman ante todo promueve la libertad de ideas que impulsan la ciencia y la duda como un tesoro para la sociedad que permite al aceptar nuestro estado de incertidumbre siempre poder tomar distintos rumbos, siempre perfeccionando lo que sabemos y el rumbo que ese conocimiento nos hace tomar.
—Diego
Here we have 3 lectures generally entitled "A Scientist looks at Society", transcribed verbatim, apparently. I can hear, even picture Feynman when reading it; he had a distinctive way of speaking that was very natural and not polished at all, including hesitations, corrections and minor mistakes of language. Not often did he memorise a speech.Here, Feynman wades a long way beyond his own territory to examine the relationship of science to politics, religion and other aspects of wider Western civilisation. He repeatedly points out that he is no authority, he could be wrong in his conclusions and so forth, which leads one towards examining his arguments on their merits rather than the celebrity or reputation of Feynman himself...which is exactly what Feynman wanted to achieve, I suspect: Don't take my word for it, question, examine and test for yourself - or put another way, take a more scientific approach to questions that are amenable to that approach.If you want to know how to do that, well this book is a reasonable starting point. Other works by Feynman could help, too. It does no harm for practising scientists to be reminded of some basic principles, too. Various people have been insisting that I should respect Argument from Authority, recently and it is literally depressing me that they cannot see that if scientists took such an approach we would still have Plato's world-view.
—Robert
