The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist by Richard P. Feynman

The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist Reviews

• 
  Shayan

  کتاب رو نخونید ولی لطفا این ریوییو رو بخونید
  .
  کتاب " معنای اینها چیست؟ " از ریچارد فاینمن که ورژن فارسی کتاب هم توی گودریدز هست ولی نمیدونم چرا با ورژن اصلی کتاب لینک نشده
  .
  اول بگم که چرا کتاب رو نخونید، خب به همون دلیل لعنتی همشیگی، ترجمه افتضاحه
  .
  
  وقتی کتاب های معروف ادبیات کلاسیک یه ترجمه درست ندارن پس نباید زیاد از کتابای علمی جدید انتظاری داشت ولی این کتاب یه نکته داشت که دیگه واقعا منو عصبانی کرد.
  .
  توی انتهای مقدمه کتاب مترجم اینو نوشته (در اینجا لازم است تاکید و تصریح کنم که بیشتر اندیشه های نویسنده به ویژه انچه درباره تضاد میان دانش و مذهب ادعا کرده کاملا نادرست است) اینجا من یه لحظه هنگ کردم با خودم گفتم مترجم کتاب چه حقی داره که بگه اندیشه های نویسنده کلا غلطه اونم اندیشه های کی؟ ریچارد فاینمن یکی از باهوش ترین فیزیک دان های صد سال اخیر
  .
  خلاصه راضی نشدم که کتابو بخونم رفتم در باره مترجم کتاب اقای محمدرضا توکلی صابری تحقیق کردم متوجه شدم ایشون خودشون دکترای شیمی از امریکا دارن و ماجرا برام عجیب تر شد. چطور یه فرد که تحصلات علمی بالا از امریکا داره میاد یه کتابی رو ترجمه میکنه که اصلا عقاید نویسنده رو قبول نداره.
  .
  خلاصه من به این اقا ایمیل زدم و ازشون کامل همه چی پرسیدم و این جواب ایشونه👇👇ه
  
  سلام))
  از توجه شما سپاسگزارم. چطور ممكن است كتابى را كه براى ترجمه انتخاب كرده ام در مقدمه اش رد بر كتاب بنويسم، آن هم كتاب يك فيزيكدان نابغه را اين متن از فرمايشات مميز وزارت ارشاد است. سطرها و پاراگراف هايى از اين كتاب حذف شده، مثل بسيارى از كتابهاى من، و وزارت ارشاد اين متن را نوشته و گفته به كتاب اضافه كنيد وگرنه اجازه چاپ نمى دهيم. ناشر بدون اطلاع دادن به من آن را به مقدمه كتاب اضافه كرده است. من معمولا اين افاضات وزارت ارشاد را در پاورقى و به عنوان توضيحات ناشر مى گذارم. خود من بيشتر از هركس ديگرى اذيت شده ام. هم اكنون چندين كتاب من در وزارت ارشاد گير كرده است چون به شرطى اجازه مى دهند كه مقدار زيادى از كتاب حذف شود
  
  .
  اره دیگه هموطن خ��اصه این بود داستان زندگی منو شما و ادمایی که دارن تمام تلاششون میکنن که منو و تو عقب مونده بمونیم
  .
  ایشالا سال دیگه همین موقع میام این ریوییو رو ادیت میکنم مینویسم یادش بخیر وازرت ارشاد
  :)
• 
  Richard

  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. (Well, bad compared to the rest of his stuff; if this were the only book of his philosophy in existence then it would be imperfect but still kinda awesome.)
  
  There's not much here that Feynman hasn't expressed elsewhere with greater eloquence. In these lectures he makes a number of false starts and abrupt stops, and some minor errors most of which should have been fixed 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 pretty 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). My guess is 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, though this error is trivial and irrelevant, its inclusion will, I suspect, give some readers an excuse to dismiss his arguments as products of ignorance.
  
  My recommendation to all but the most die-hard 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.
• 
  Katie

  What a wonderful, quick, fascinating read. I'd say this is my new manifesto if the idea of having a manifesto didn't go against nearly everything inside.
  
  This is the first thing I've read by Richard Feynman and I'm very excited to read more. He's clearly one of those people who is talented at everything, and could have been a celebrated poet or an economist if he didn't become a physicist instead.
  
  I'm a little surprised to see some many reviews here that suggest that this collection of lectures is scattershot or unfocused. Feynman jumps around from example to example, but the whole thing works really well as a celebration of uncertainty and openness. I liked this, because I think uncertainty is a hugely undervalued trait (at least in American society, I can't speak for elsewhere). It's often see as a sign of weakness or cowardice, which is silly: it's often difficult and frightening to remain undecided about something, and requires a good deal of personal strength and questioning. But Feynman notes that this indecision is hugely valuable, in science and beyond: it's the only way to discover new questions and new possibilities and it keeps the world open to change and growth. These lectures are permeated with a kind of cautious idealism that I found to be really attractive. You could read through it in an afternoon, and I highly recommend it.
  
  
  PS: The title of this book is terrible and I'm 95% sure Richard Feynman didn't choose it.
• 
  Libby

  3.5 stars
  Richard Feynman was regarded as one of the most brilliant minds in his field (theoretical physics) in the post World War II era. ‘The Meaning of It All’ is a series of 3 lectures in which he “explores problems in the borderline between science and philosophy, religion, and society.” These lectures were presented in April 1963 at the University of Washington (Seattle). The language is appropriate for an audience of laypeople; no scientific background is required.
  
  I’ve always thought of science as precise, so it was interesting to read Feynman’s thoughts on the uncertainties of science:
  
  “Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important. I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences. I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.”
  
  Feynman talks about how it is the scientist's job to try to prove himself wrong.
  
  When he discusses religion, he talks about the meaning of life and how it is felt that if humans could discover the meaning of life, then some great power would be unleashed. Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and many others have tried to answer this question. Feynman says the answer to the meaning of it all is unknown. He calls this admission “the open channel” and ascertains that this attitude “permits a possibility of alteration, of thinking, of new contributions and new discoveries for the problem of developing a way to do what we want ultimately, even when we do not know what we want.”
  
  Feynman says, “it is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.”
  
  He has quite a few things to say about the wonders of science. I can sense his awe. Uncertainty does not bother him. He seems to think that absolute faith and dogmatism are problematic because then people start insisting that everyone else has to see things the same way they do. In some cases they will even go against their own basic principles to “maintain that what they said was true.”
  
  It’s a slim book with some food for thought and some insight into Feynman. His thoughts ramble at times but mostly his logic is easy to follow. It was intriguing to follow along with the thoughts of a brilliant mind and clarify some of my own thoughts regarding old arguments. One reviewer commented that Feynman used a working man’s language. I agree that he made these lectures accessible to anyone. Another reviewer commented that they are not representative of his best talks or writing. As I’ve never read anything by him before, it’s hard for me to comment on that. However, some of the science I’ve read lately, for example, by Merlin Sheldrake in ‘Entangled Life’ would put this in the shade.
• 
  Shaunt

  Richard Feynman was something else. He summarizes the curious, scientific worldview like no other.
  
• 
  Jim

  There are 3 lectures by Feynman here that he presented in Seattle, WA in the early 60s, about 1963, I think. We were still lagging behind the USSR in the Space Race & there are other references that might not mean much to the younger folks, but not many. I think
  Richard Dawkins is a worthy scientific successor to Feynman's ideas & I see the roots of many of them here. (Personally, Feynman was far more of a hoot than Dawkins.) IOW, he's the finest kind of scientist.
  
  The lectures are about the Uncertainty of Science. The first is its nature, doubt, & uncertainty. He makes a great comparison to finer sifting in our discoveries as we know more, look harder, & get better tools to look deeper.
  
  The second is its impact on other fields, specifically politics & religion. His main points here are that we shouldn't be looking for politicians with the answers, but those with the best plan to obtain the answers. Obviously they can't be experts on everything & yet they promise just that, so now no one believes campaign promises. Religion should be subject to verifiable scrutiny just like everything else. If a supposed saint's bones really do help treat an illness, the process to determine that should be held up to open experimental confirmation just like any other medicine, not closed sessions of the church & anecdotal evidence. Of course, more than likely they couldn't, but there is a possibility.
  
  The third is about a variety of subjects; what society looks like to him. This was by far the best. He had some great ideas & observations, if few solutions & conclusions. I really like his idea that we should change our arguments into discussions about goals. He says he really likes the goals of the Pope, but doesn't like how he arrived at them.
  
  This is short, just a few hours to listen to & well worth every minute. Highly recommended. The only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars is there isn't much that's new.
  
  3 how society looks to him.
• 
  Jake

  Feynman my man.
  
  His peculiar genius- touch on the world had a distinctive lack of pretension. His words here, and elsewhere ring of a sort of working class speech pattern. A certain informality relative to his stature and grandeur as a first rate thinker. I will admit, nothing about these transcribed lectures echo the sort of high literacy one sees in likes of many of the brilliant writers in history, yet despite that there is a sort of unvarnished charm to Feynman’s way of thinking. He is the sort of thinker that side stepped stupidity, verbosity, and bullshit in a seamless dodge. Truly a brilliant man. But a most peculiar fellow. I can not though in full sincerity say this book was worth my time.
  If you seek questions on how to think about science, and how scientists SHOULD think about the world, then I think there are likely many more well thought out treatises. But, if you desire to understand this particular soul’s manner of thought, then this is a good for you.
  
  This book is not evenly weighted at all in terms of the value it may contribute to the world.
  
  Some basic notes, this has 3 transcribed lectures:
  
  Chapter 1:
  is a wonderful exposition on proper science on science. That being that doubt is not simply important within the creation of hypotheses, but that it is central.
  
  Chapter 2:
  Some talk about religion which was boring
  
  a highly dated political discussion on topics such as communism versus capitalism. Remember he lived during the Cold War
  
  Chapter 3:
  
  Titled “this unscientific age”. He decouples, for the second time, technological innovation, and scientific advancement. Meaning just because ones age can apply scientific findings it does not mean that this era has people that care about truth science. This resonated with me.
  
  Feynman wings it and rambles about things that bother him. Which is argue was simply an expansion of the doubt he espoused in science in the first chapter/lecture but this time argued you should apply that doubt to most aspects of life.
  
  Chapter 4:
  More Feynman anecdotes. Admittedly. I became quickly bored
  
  
  Recommended to people interested in how a particular skeptical scientist saw the world.
  
  
  Alas, now I have half a year to read the rest of my books.
• 
  Clif Hostetler

  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.
• 
  Anupam Ranku

  Reading Richard Feynman's book is always entertaining. This book consists of a transcript of three lectures. I think listening to the lectures would have been more fun. Some notable lines:
  
  - Keep trying new solutions is the way to do everything.
  
  - For billions of years, this ball was spinning with its sunsets and its waves and the sea and the noises, and there was nothing alive to appreciate it.
  
  - This piece of dirt waits four and a half billion years and evolves and changes, and now a strange creature stands here with instruments and talks to the strange creatures in the audience. What a wonderful world!
  
  - For a long time, no one even noticed the phenomenon of electricity, except once in a while when they rubbed a piece of amber and it attracted a piece of paper. And yet today we find, by playing with these things, that we have a tremendous amount of machinery inside. Yet science is still not thoroughly appreciated.
  
  - The old laws may be wrong. How can an observation be incorrect? If it has been carefully checked, how can it be wrong? Why are physicists always having to change the laws? The answer is, first, that the laws are not the observation and, second, that experiments are always inaccurate. The laws are guessed laws, extrapolations, not something that the observations insist upon. They are just good guesses that have gone through the sieve so far. Laws are extrapolations into the unknown.
  
  -Scientists are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is uncertain. This experiments with doubt and uncertainty are important. I believe that it is of very great value and one that extends beyond the sciences. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings.
  
  -The science student begins to doubt, and then he begins to disbelieve perhaps, in his father's God. By God, I mean the kind of personal God, to which one prays, who has something to do with creation.
  
  - The attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer (even though it is wrong or made up) and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no (specific) answer (even though he has a way of getting at the answer).
• 
  Jim

  
  Richard P. Feynman's
  The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts Of A Citizen-scientist is a delightful series of three lectures on the uncertainty of science, then of values, and ending with the best of all -- "This Unscientific Age" -- which deals with popular notions which militate against science in favor of various shaky beliefs.
  
  Feynman is a great believer in uncertainty as a guiding principle in life:

  I made an impassioned plea for the idea that it's good to have an open channel, that there's value in uncertainty, that it's more important to permit us to discover new things, rather than to choose a solution that we now make up -- that to choose a solution, no matter how we choose it now is to choose a much worse thing than what we would get if we waited and worked things out. And that's where I made the choice, and I'm not sure of that choice. Okay, I have now destroyed authority.

  In an age of cockamamie beliefs ranging from fundamentalist religion to astrology to New Age, it is better, according to Feynman, to hold back and consider the issue more systematically and at greater length.
  
  It is a pity that we no longer have Feynman with us: We need him more than ever at this time of division.
• 
  Funda Guzer

  Ilk kitabini lise yillarimda okudugum yazar, okudugum ikinci kitabi ile beni daha da buyuledi ve kendisine saygim daha da artti. Degerli Insan Richard Feynman. Allah rahmet eylesin.
• 
  Mehmet

  Her ne kadar başlığı son derece iddialı olsa da kitapta pek her şeyin anlamına dair içerik olduğunu söyleyemem. Kitabın en vurucu ve dikkat çekici kısmı sahte bilim veya "gayri bilimsel çağ" ile ilgili olan kısımları. Bir radyoda çıkan reklamın dahi insanı nasıl aptal yerine koyduğunu söylerken; aslında bir gerçeğe işaret ediyor yaşadığımız çağın "Akıl Çağı" değil, "Akıldışılık Çağı" olduğu gerçeğine.
• 
  Pino Sabatelli

  «Grazie, mi sono divertito molto.»
  Anch’io professor Feynman, grazie a Lei.
• 
  Kuszma

  Feynman mint figura régóta érdekel, viszont a fizika mint tudomány meglehetősen távol áll tőlem – alighanem a törés kettőnk viszonyában középiskolai tanulmányaim során mélyült el, amikor is az egyébként imádni való és igazán karakteres Szűcs tanár úr kezei alá/közé kerültem. Tőle amúgy sok mindent megtanultam – például azt, hogyan kell finoman aktuálpolitikai kérdésekkel akár fél órát is lelopni a fizikaórából, valamint azt, miképpen feleltessünk tíz-tizenöt embert uszkve tíz perc alatt. (Villámkérdésekkel. A Szűcs-féle villámkérdéses módszer amúgy is meglehetősen hírhedt volt, különösen mert a villámkérdések nem korlátozódtak sótlanul a fizikatudományra, hanem elkalandoztak egyéb vadászmezőkre is. Lásd: "Egy heted hét hány tized évtized?") Amit nem sajátítottam el – az a fizika. Igen, azt hiszem, akkor veszített el a kvantumfizika egy potenciális tudóst személyemben. (Hogy a matematika, a biológia, a kémia, a testnevelés vagy az ének-zene hogyan vesztegetett el ebben az időszakban egy esetleges héroszt, arról hajh! mesélhetnék… de nem fogok.) És erre meglátom a könyvtárban ezt a könyvet – Feynman-előadások, amelyek nem a fizikáról szólnak! Csúcs! Mi ez, ha nem isteni jel? Ám olvasgatván a könyvet, egyre inkább az a benyomásom támadt, hogy ha isteni jel volt is, hogy e mű elém került, nem azt akarta jelezni Isten általa, amit beleértettem… hiába, az isteni jelek dekódolásában nem segít semmiféle Google Translate. Merthogy ez a könyv – nem jó.
  
  Először is azért nem jó, mert nem jó a fordítás. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy Dr. Ill Márton nagyszerű tudós és kiváló tudományszervező (volt, sajnos) – de az a helyzet, hogy a fordításhoz nem ilyesféle képességek kellenek. Hanem érzék a megfelelő szórend és a kontextushoz illő magyar kifejezések megtalálásához. Gondolom én. Enélkül ugyanis az eredendően (feltételezem) gördülékeny angol szöveg rohadtul nem gördülékeny, magyartalan magyar szöveggé változik. Tegyük még hozzá, hogy a kötet szövegei tulajdonképpen az élőbeszéd – három egyetemi előadás – hangulatát kívánják átadni, ami viszont így, ebben a köntösben hol butácskának, hol csapongónak, hol erőltetettnek hat. Jó, persze mindent nem lehet a fordításra fogni – az is igaz, hogy ha megpróbálok leásni a magyarításon túlra, akkor sem sejlik fel túl sok érték a szövegben: sok korlátozottan kihagyhatatlan példa és kellőképpen nem kifejtett fejtegetés, valamint az a mélységesen igaz, de nem újszerű állítás, hogy a tudomány alapja a kételkedés. Úgyhogy ha legközelebb valami isteni jelet látok-hallok jártamban-keltemben, mielőtt reagálok rá, visszakérdezek, hogy tényleg jól értettem-e.
• 
  Ahmad Ashkaibi

  When I read a book for someone like Richard Feynman, the first things jumps to my mind is how lucky were his students. I wish I could meet someone like him in person. I could listen to him talk for hours.
  
  In this book, Feynman talks about the relationship between science and people. These were three lectures presented by Professor Feynman at California Institute University, in 1963.
  In the first lecture, he talks about the uncertainty of science. Everything about science is uncertain; the scientific findings themselves, the purposes of the scientific researches, and the consequences of the science development. The second lecture is about the uncertainty of values. He compares the scientific findings to the religious and moral values. I quote his words here: “I do not believe that the scientist can have that same certainty of faith that very deeply religious people have”.
  In the Final Lecture, he talks how we’re living in an unscientific age. He means by that, that despite the development of science, but people are still following the power of economy and strategical leadership, and not necessarily the value of the scientific findings.
  
  Richard Feynman is a very fine physicist, but he is also a very fine philosopher.
  I strongly recommend this book to everybody in science business; i.e. professors, researchers, students, etc.
  It was a great book. I’ve enjoyed it.
  
• 
  Susan

  I felt the chapter The Unscientific Age redeemed this book. I barely could keep my attention on it. But when I came to the final chapter his point finally clicked. I think he has quite a bit to say about conspiracy theories and widespread paranoia. I wish the American public could read this chapter!
  
  Besides that though I felt the book was too rambling and not pointed and emphatic enough. It is almost like he wanted all his words to maintain a sort of equivalent nature. Not good when writing a book where you want to make a strong point about things.
• 
  Lada

  There's not much here that a scientist probably has not thought of on their own, nor is it expressed in a way that would make you pause and think of things in a new way, but the historical context (civil rights, space exploration, cold war) and the fact that it is a self-admitted brain dump by Freynman, make it a worthwhile read.
• 
  Hind

  A really nice and short read on the meaning of doing science and it’s inherent uncertainty. A very useful read for aspiring scientists as well as the average layman.
• 
  Daniel Kraft

  The reason I read this book is because of Feynman was a part of the Manhattan project (also because he was a nobel laureate). The perspective on ‘meaning’ or ‘value’ where Feynman “[…] will discuss the impact of scientific views on political questions, in particular the question of national enemies, and on religious questions”, is unique and extremely interesting. It is a rare occurrence considering that Feynman was instrumental, and fully aware of what he was doing, in the creation of the atomic bomb, and also provides a view on the relation between science and meaning/value(s). My interest in "The Meaning of It All" was not regarding Feynman as a physicist, but as an ethicist.
  
  The Manhattan project (Feynman was involved 1942-1945) was a race - USA wanted to develop nuclear weapon before Germany did during WWII. To give a little context, here’s an overiew of some events.
  
  1945-04-30 Hitler commits suicide,
  1945-05-07 Germany surrenders WWII,
  1945 July. The Szilárd petition was signed by 70 Manhattan project scientists (not Feynman).
  1945-07-16 Trinity test was conducted,
  1945-08-06 Little boy drops on Hiroshima, Japan. 66 000 dead. 69 000 injured,
  1945-08-09 Fat man drops on Nagasaki, Japan. 60-80 000 dead.
  
  Feynman was present during the Trinity test and was asked to follow along the plane that dropped Little boy. From a scientist point of view, I can understand that there’s a beauty igniting the light that fuels the stars. If this light is so intense it can be seen from another planet - and if I knew it would be used on people - I would think twice about what I was a part of creating. This is what Feynman should have written about.
  
  Unfortunately Feynman doesn’t provide any satisfying ‘rationales’ or ‘justifications’ or ‘reflections’. Feynman writes “The most obvious characteristic of science is its application, the fact that as a consequence of science one has a power to do things. And the effect this power has had need hardly be mentioned.“ He continues by adding some examples after stating “[n]ow this power to do things carries with it no instructions on how to use it, whether to use it for good or for evil. The product of this power is either good or evil, depending on how it is used.“
  
  A little later, somewhat redundant, Feyman says: “I think a power to do something is of value. Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on how it is used, but the power is a value” and continues “[t]o every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell.” The latter has become a famous quote although in this context it is trivial - it does not explain anything. No principle can be derived from it or the arguments above. It is ‘the instructions to use power’ that is crucial to discuss; if there are none, it is absolutely necessary to invent them.
  
  I think the key to Feynman’s psychology comes from this passage:
  
  All the major problems of the relations between society and science lie in this same area. When the scientist is told that he must be more responsible for his effects on society, it is the applications of science that are referred to. If you work to develop nuclear energy you must realize also that it can be used harmfully. Therefore, you would expect that, in a discussion of this kind by a scientist, this would be the most important topic. But I will not talk about it further. I think that to say these are scientific problems is an exaggeration. They are far more humanitarian problems. The fact that how to work the power is clear, but how to control it is not, is something not so scientific and is not something that the scientist knows so much about.”
  
  There is a difference between to “develop nuclear energy” and to ‘develop a nuclear bomb’. One cannot separate ‘scientific problems’ from ‘humanitarian problems’ as the first have implications on the other. Secondly, there are not so many different things you can do with a bomb (considering this is my interest in the book). The quote that science can be used for ‘doing good or bad’ serves little to no value when discussing the ethical dilemma here. Especially because Feynman doesn’t want to talk about it further (but still do later on).
  
  When discussing the uncertainty of values Feynman says “I say that we do not know what is the meaning of life and what are the right moral values, that we have no way to choose them and so on. No discussion can be made of moral values, of the meaning of life and so on, without coming to the great source of systems of morality and descriptions of meaning, which is in the field of religion.” It is negligent to just not care about problems because the (relevant) problems are “in the field of religion”. From here on the discourse mainly consist of binary oppositions; freedom/unfreedom, USA/Russia, good/evil, christianity/atheism, etc.
  
  The distinction between science and moral, is could be phrased by, “[...] I would like to make a little philosophical argument to explain why theoretically I think that science and moral are independent.” The basic question (sort of) in scientific inquiry (a) ‘if I do this what will happen?’ and is completely different to (b) ‘should I do this’. The latter would be a question that could not be answered whilst the first one can, according to Feynman. In-depth-analysis is never given. The argument kind of goes full circle on the finishing note “[y]ou see, at the end you must have some ultimate judgment”. Clarification on who/what/why the ultimate judgment is, Feynman doesn’t go into further detail on.
  
  All these generalizations and dead ends are extremely frustrating while reading. Everything Feynman has to say about ethics or meaning or value is trivial. The entire field of moral philosophy is overlooked. And this completely astonished me while reading, considering the impact Feynman has.
  
  From the overview of events presented earlier, listening to Feynman-interviews, I know two things. First of all that Feynman was in crucial for the Manhattan project, fully aware of what was going on, and first handedly experienced all of the events. Secondly he was convinced by the justification for creating a WMD (‘either the Germans do it or we do it’). It surprised me learning that the key scientists (and especially Feynman considering the opportunity in a book like this) in the Manhattan project never openly discuss (i) the realization that Germany was never so far in producing nuclear weapons, (ii) the continuation of the Manhattan project after Germany’s surrender, (iii) the Szilárd petition, (iv) why Japan was the target and not Germany, (v) why civilians where the target, (vi) alternatives to ending the war than nuclear bombs, (vii) the necessity of dropping not one but two (!) nuclear bombs, (viii) lastly and perhaps most important, that one of the most basic principles in science is that you can repeat what you discover. Why was it never discussed that the enemies of USA would also have nuclear weapons in the forseeable future? These things should be what Feyman discussed in a book with the title “The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist!
  
  The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were means justifying an end. The end here is probably asserting dominance. And to some extent ending WWII. Even though the means here were extremely excessive, there still has been a principle formulated, which could be rephraesed as ‘justification through teleological value model’. G.E.M. Anscombe famously wrote in Mr. Truman’s Degree:
  
  “The action was necessary, or at any rate it was thought by competent, expert military opinion to be necessary; it probably saved more lives than it sacrificed; it had a good result, it ended the war. Come now: if you had to choose between boiling one baby and letting some frightful disaster befall on a thousand people - or a million people, if a thousand is not enough - what would you do? Are you going to strike an attitude and say 'You may not do evil that may come'? […]”
  
  The heat wave from Little boy caused all water to boil. Infants and children that were bathed when Little boy were dropped on Hiroshima, boiled to death. Whether this is justified should be the starting point of any discussion regarding justification of scientific research. Not filling a book on the topic ‘meaning’ with playful scientific method.
  
  As a Swede there’s an interesting parallell to Alfred Nobel, the “dynamite king”, who gained a fortune creating a powerful weapon. And devoted the same fortune to charity. According to legacy Nobel’s brother Ludvig Nobel died from a heart attack in France and a French paper mixed up Ludvig and Alfred. The obituary supposedly said that Alfred Nobel, the ‘merchant of death’ gained his fortune because of his innovations lead to new ways to ‘mutilate and kill’. This lead to a crisis of conscience and Nobel’s will was rewritten - this is the reason the Nobel prize is given annually.
• 
  Gonçalo Madureira

  3.0⭐️ “The Meaning of It All” by Richard Feynman is a set of four lectures that Feynman gave in Seattle in 1963. Feynman needs no introduction, being a renowned physicist whose discoveries have had an enormous impact on society.
  
  In this set of lectures Feynman begins by explaining what science is. Defines it as one of 3 things: (1) A specific method of discovering things; (2) A body of knowledge that arises from things discovered and (3) What is done with things discovered (i.e. technology).
  It presents its epistemological view of the value of scientific knowledge, admitting that a scientific discovery cannot be considered good or bad, arguing that it is its application that gives it value. Feynman also argues that scientific knowledge has value in its own right, regardless of its applications or lack of them.
  
  Feynman argues for the ubiquity of scientific knowledge, that scientific knowledge transcends all areas of reality (eg atoms exist in biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). The corollary of this premise is that scientific knowledge must be extrapolated to all realms of existence.
  
  It admits as an unquestionable truth, that all scientific knowledge is uncertain and anti-dogmatic, leading to doubt and the search for explanations that may be more plausible. He elaborates on this argument in another lecture as one of the main conflicts between science and religion.
  
  Feynman lectures on a variety of topics from popular acceptance of science to state control over scientific progress. The lectures date back to the Cold War and so Feynman talks about state control in science comparing the USSR and the US.
  
  The last lecture is derivative, confusing and poorly structured. It talks about several topics but developing very few.
  
  In short, I have to admit that the book is disappointing. It starts with a brilliant lecture on general principles of epistemology but ends up becoming a kind of derailment of ideas and boring verbiage, mainly due to the lack of connection and development of its arguments.
• 
  Diana

  Последната лекция - "Ненаучната епоха" е това, което очаквах като съдържание от цялата книга и което има смисъл да се прочете и запомни.
  Въпреки огромното ми уважение към Файнман, останалото е просто пълнеж.
• 
  عدنان عوض

  كتاب صغير في حجمه كبير في محتواه، فكما ذكر فايمان فإن أفكاره معروفة وليست جديدة، ولكن وظيفته هو تذكير الأجيال الحالية بمعنى العلم وعلاقته بالدين والسياسة...
  
  أستطيع القول بعد قراءة الكتاب أنه من الكتب التأسيسية لأي شخص يحتاج لقراءة مقدمات في ماهية العلم وفلسفته.
• 
  Kate

  "If you feel that your intelligence is being insulted, don't buy the product".
  
  Лекции 1963 года — и почти не потеряли актуальности. Всё-таки очень освежает спокойная рациональность (особенно после 1,5 лет в перманентной общемировой истерике). Отдельные принципы, в частности ошибочность построений, основанных на аналогиях, нужно б нам всем крепко помнить, особенно если мы ввязываемся в очередной онлайновый спор.
• 
  Jim Razinha

  I know this may be a shock, but I've never read Feynman until now. Of course, I pick a transcription of a three night series of lectures for my first, rather than his...more thought out writings. But, one gets a sense of his humor. The three lectures, in 1963 Seattle, were titled, "The Uncertainty of Science", "The Uncertainty of Values", and "This Unscientific Age". Feynman's first two lectures had structure, and yet this still reads like the spoken lecture it was - sidetracks here and there. Okay, he was all over the place, and he admits his third lecture is a collection of thoughts, with less structure, certainly, and it reads like it.
  
  Takeaways...
  
  In The Uncertainty of Science, Feynman talks about science being "a method of finding things out". Observation is king in this aspect: if "there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be rpoved by observation, that rule is wrong." Simple, yet not simple. And

  But if a thing is not scientific, if it cannot be subjected to the test of observation, this does not mean that it is dead, wrong, or stupid. ... Scientists take all those things that can be analyzed by observation, and thus the things called science are found out. But there are some things left out, for which the method does not work. This does not mean those things are unimportant.

  What follows is one of the many times he was all over the place that I mentioned at the start.
  
  Feynman says that the more specific a scientific "rule is, the more interesting it is. The more definite the statement, the more interesting it is to test." I like that but he jumps right into

  Words can be meaningless. If they are used in such a way that no sharp conclusions can be drawn, as in my example of “oomph,” then the proposition they state is almost meaningless, because you can explain almost anything by the assertion that things have a tendency to motility. A great deal has been made of this by philosophers, who say that words must be defined extremely precisely. Actually, I disagree somewhat with this; I think that extreme precision of definition is often not worthwhile, and sometimes it is not possible—in fact mostly it is not possible, but I will not get into that argument here.

  I think his point is meaningless. Definitions are not the issue. What words are used is. Regardless, he closes that first lecture with "Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open questions and an uncertain matter." If any scientist claims no uncertainty, I think said scientist needs to go back to school.
  
  In his second lecture, The Uncertainty of Values, Feynman skirts and flirts with something Gould thought was non-overlapping. He says

  So I have developed in a previous talk, and I want to maintain here, that it is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.

  By being uncertain, we can progress. On the other end, there is little as certain as a devout religious man, who will not progress. My thoughts, not his. At least not here. He does pose a thought exercise of a young man (recall, this is 1963...) of a religious family going off to a university to study science who learns to doubt. Feynman believed without data that more than half of scientists did not believe in their father's God and asks, why?

  By answering this question I think that we will point up most clearly the problems of the relation of religion and science. Well, why is it? There are three possibilities. The first is that the young man is taught by the scientists, and I have already pointed out, they are atheists, and so their evil is spread from the teacher to the student, perpetually. . . . Thank you for the laughter. If you take this point of view, I believe it shows that you know less of science than I know of religion.

  "If you take this point of view..." Love it! The second possibility was an assumption that a little knowledge was dangerous and the young man having learned a little science now thought he knew everything. And the third possibility was that the young man didn't understand science correctly, because science cannot disprove God. Feynman says "It is not my purpose to disprove anything." Maybe...maybe not. But Feynman does take the discussion in the right direction" 'Is there a God, or isn't there a God?" changes to the question 'How sure am I that there is a God?' " Now, continuing along what Gould would later label Non Overlapping Majesteria, Feynman says that ethical values lie outside the scientific realm, and responding to people who thought that science should have some conclusions about moral values:

  I have several reasons for that. You see, if you don’t have a good reason, you have to have several reasons [I laughed out loud at that!], so I have four reasons to think that moral values lie outside the scientific realm. First, in the past there were conflicts. The metaphysical positions have changed, and there have been practically no effects on the ethical views. So there must be a hint that there is an independence. Second, I already pointed out that, I think at least, there are good men who practice Christian ethics and don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. [...] The third thing is that, as far as I know in the gathering of scientific evidence, there doesn't seem to be anywhere, anything that says whether the Golden Rule is a good one or not. I don't have any evidence of it on the basis of scientific study.
  And finally I would like to make a little philosophical argument [...] "What should I do? Should I do this?"

  ... scientifically cannot be answered. Cause and effect can usually be determined, but an effect from cause may not necessarily follow. As to his first point and the hint of independence, I say there is a hint, but not confirmation. And to his second point, he traps himself with naming Christian ethics, which are neither exclusive nor original. (Nor divinely revealed.)
  
  In 1963, Russia was still the big threat, and he had thoughts on it:

  Russia is a backward country. Oh, it is technologically advanced. I described the difference between what I like to call the science and technology. It does not apparently seem, unfortunately, that engineering and technological development are not consistent with suppressed new opinion. It appears, at least in the days of Hitler, where no new science was developed, nevertheless rockets were made, and rockets also can be made in Russia. I am sorry to hear that, but it is true that technological development, the applications of science, can go on without the freedom. Russia is backward because it has not learned that there is a limit to government power. The great discovery of the Anglo-Saxons is—they are not the only people who thought of it, but, to take the later history of the long struggle of the idea—that there can be a limit to government power.

  Today, members of a certain non-progressive political party claim to want to reduce government, yet they actually want to increase their power. Feynman also says

  The fact that Russia is not free is clear to everyone, and the consequences in the sciences are quite obvious. One of the best examples is Lysenko, who has a theory of genetics, which is that acquired characteristics can be passed on to the offspring. This is probably true.

  Yeah. You can imagine my reaction. He qualifies that by saying that the major part of genetic behavior is different than Lysenko's theory. I suppose that's the good, uncertain, scientist talking.
  
  Feynman's last lecture was as noted above, admittedly a collection of ideas and not with a specific point. He titled it "The Unscientific Age". Little did he know that 50 years later it would get worse. On judging an idea, an example:

  The first one [example] has to do with whether a man knows what he is talking about, whether what he says has some basis or not. And my trick that I use is very easy. If you ask him intelligent questions—that is, penetrating, interested, honest, frank, direct questions on the subject, and no trick questions—then he quickly gets stuck.

  A rather sad assessment, he tells a story about politics

  Suppose two politicians are running for president, and one goes through the farm section and is asked, “What are you going to do about the farm question?” And he knows right away—bang, bang, bang. Now he goes to the next campaigner who comes through. “What are you going to do about the farm problem?” “Well, I don’t know. I used to be a general, and I don’t know anything about farming. But it seems to me it must be a very difficult problem, because for twelve, fifteen, twenty years people have been struggling with it, and people say that they know how to solve the farm problem. And it must be a hard problem. So the way that I intend to solve the farm problem is to gather around me a lot of people who know something about it, to look at all the experience that we have had with this problem before, to take a certain amount of time at it, and then to come to some conclusion in a reasonable way about it. Now, I can’t tell you ahead of time what conclusion, but I can give you some of the principles I’ll try to use - not to make things difficult for individual farmers, if there are any special problems we will have to have some way to take care of them," etc., etc., etc.
  Now such a man would never get anywhere in this country, I think. It's never been tried, anyway., This is in the attitude of mind of the populace, that they have to have an answer and that a man who gives an answer is better than a man who gives no answer, when the real fact of the matter is, in most cases, it is the other way around.

  I have direct experience with this. I gave the second answer in an interview. Not what the hiring authority was looking for, or wanting. And in today's politics, baldfaced lies are preferred by a certain minority of the electorate to anyone who honestly says we have to put in some work.
  
  Asking how we get new ideas, he answers "by analogy" and then illustrates

  First, we take witch doctors. The witch doctor says he knows how to cure. There are spirits inside which are trying to get out. You have to blow them out with an egg, and so on. Put a snakeskin on and take quinine from the bark of a tree. The quinine works. He doesn’t know he’s got the wrong theory of what happens. If I’m in the tribe and I’m sick, I go to the witch doctor. He knows more about it than anyone else. But I keep trying to tell him he doesn’t know what he’s doing and that someday when people investigate the thing freely and get free of all his complicated ideas they’ll learn much better ways of doing it. Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course. If you look at all of the complicated ideas that they have developed in an infinitesimal amount of time, if you compare to any other of the sciences how long it takes to get one idea after the other, if you consider all the structures and inventions and complicated things, the ids and the egos, the tensions and the forces, and the pushes and the pulls, I tell you they can't all be there. It's too much for one brain or a few brains to have cooked up in such a short time. However, I remind you that if you're in the tribe, there's nobody else to go to.

  Okay, I quoted this because his analogy of psychoanalysts to witch doctors was a gem. And damn if he isn't spot on: so much mumbo jumbo in such a comparatively short (in the grand humanity scheme of things) amount of time.
  
  So, I whetted my appetite and now need to read more substance from the great physicist.
• 
  Joshua Guest

  What can I say? Richard Feynman makes a good case against religious thinking as politely as anyone. But he is also willing to admit the limitations of science to establish morals. He recognizes that science will kill for us even more readily than it will heal. Education alone is not an absolute good as it can be used to teach evil. This man is a top 10 pick for famous people I’d like to have lunch with.
• 
  Bá Hoàng

  Cuốn sách được tổng hợp từ 3 bài phát biểu dài của ông Feynman, mỗi bài nói về chủ đề khác nhau, đều có ý nghĩa riêng, rất đáng đọc và suy nghĩ. Tôi nhận thấy ở Feynman có nhiều điểm tương đồng với Einstein như: yêu thích khoa học, vui với những gì khám phá và đóng góp cho xã hội hơn là những danh vọng được trao cho khám phá, vô cùng ghét quyền lực, coi thường sức mạnh của sự chuyên chế,sự cúi đầu. Tôi nghĩ đây là những giá trị làm nên sự vĩ đại của 2 Ông.
  “Quyền tự do được hoài nghi là vấn đề quan trọng trong khoa học và tôi tin rằng cả trong những lĩnh vực khác nữa. Quyền tự do ấy là thành quà của cuộc đấu tranh. Đó là cuộc đấu tranh để được phép hoài nghi, để được cảm thấy không chắc chắn. Và tôi không muốn chúng ta quên đi tầm quan trọng của cuộc đấu tranh để mọi thứ tiêu tan vì bỏ cuộc. Tôi cảm thấy có trách nhiệm với tư cách nhà khoa học, là người biết rõ giá trị to lớn của triết lý thật thoả đáng của không hiểu biết. Tiến bộ trở thành khả dĩ là nhờ triết lý như thế và tiến bộ là kết quả của quyền tự do tư tưởng... Tôi muốn yêu cầu quyền tự do ấy cho những thế hệ tương lai” Richard Feynman.
• 
  Mohamed al-Jamri

  This book is a short read. It is based on three-part public lecture given by Feynman in 1963 in which he talked about various topics. In general they're enjoyable, especially those that deal with science, but he also speaks about politics. The following points are my summary for the most important topic he tackled:
  *The nature of science, the fact that it can be used for good or evil purposes.
  *Nature and its poetry that is way more beautiful than myths, because its imagination is more than that of humans.
  *The unification of electric and magnetic power by Michael Faraday.
  *Observation as a final judge in the truth of an idea and its limitations (can't answer ethical questions)
  *Importance of doubt in science and its uncertainty.
  *Relationship between science and religion. He is rather cautious in this part and only shyly says that science can erode religion, because it encourages doubt. This is understandable in the time these lectures were given when in the United State atheism was equated with Communism which was seen as the enemy, which takes us to the next point..
  *Criticism of USSR's lack of freedom and domination over eastern Europe. Of course as with many American's Feyman fails to criticize his own country's interventions in other countries of the world.
  *Lysenkoism in USSR which is a great example about how politics can ruin scientific advancement.
  *Support for limited government, freedom of thought and inquiry.
  *How to think scientifically about different topics including telepathy (mind reading), flying saucers, astrology, chance, faith healing, conspiracy theories, prayer and nuclear testing.
  *Criticism of the hard spelling of English words.
  *Criticism of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. He equates the both, which is a big mistake in my opinion, but again psychiatry was new back them and the reputation of psychoanalysis was all-over it. It was hard for non-specialists to know the difference.
• 
  Devastatingwildness

  El libro está muy bien. El valor social de la incertidumbre y mejorar nuestra forma de razonar y actuar en consecuencia seguramente sea la idea principal de estas conferencias. Se explica tan bien a un nivel "de la calle" y razona tan bien con ideas muy sencillas respetando la inteligencia de los demás y siendo tan honesto que, aunque en primera aproximación te parezca que el valor de la incertidumbre explicado por un científico no puede realmente interesar a mucha gente, te acaba parecienro que es realmente importante tener en cuanto lo que dice y que todos podrían tener este parecer con tal de que simplemente le escucharan. Y eso realmente es una lección para todos.
  
  Lo que me hubiera gustado escucharle es siendo más crítico con el ejército, con la guerra y con la bomba nuclear dado lo que parece extrarse de sus palabras de las que puedan ser las ideas morales que tiene y dado que ha trabajado como científico en un proyecto militar como fue la creación de la bomba atómica.
• 
  Kevin Brennan

  I'm afraid I have to echo the opinions of other reviewers who commented on this book's general air of disorganization and randomness. By no means do you get "the meaning of it all" by reading it.
  
  Unfortunately, this is the first I've read of Feynman. Here, we are treated to three lectures of his, apparently transcribed verbatim, and the overriding sense I get is that he was either speaking off the cuff from note cards or indulging in complete free association. A brilliant mind, I don't doubt. But slogging through this to receive just a few glimpses of what that mind was truly capable of was too much for me.
  
  On to another from him to get a better taste ...
• 
  Heba

  the book is a nice and easy read. Feynman had a really smooth style when addressing big issues. It felt like I was having coffee with him while discussing science, religion and politics. Highly recommended.