For me the reason isn't mysterious. You can flex it so you can tilt the page easily while you're writing, the rigid support makes the thing more clunky. Paper is still usually larger, so it's less eye strain. And most importantly you can look at multiple pages at the same time, or even multiple books/papers.but to really learn a subject or read a paper carefully, for some reason I need to print it on paper to work through it carefully.
Same here. I need to flip back and forth when reading something technical. Science may be 'linear thinking', whatever that means, but I can only learn it if I refer to those parts of the exposition that came before my place in it. Really thinking about a subject, not only the sciences perhaps, requires going over an understanding I have formed by a certain point in the text and to catch the 'true meaning' and nuances of the subject. For some reason, that's not so easy when I don't have all the pages in my hand at once. Scrolling back and forth on a screen just doesn't cut it for me.... to really learn a subject or read a paper carefully, for some reason I need to print it on paper to work through it carefully.
The language he uses here, and throughout the interview, seems to reinforce the rift between the lay-person and the scientist. While it is certainly true that some physical concepts require a lot of math to fully develop, it is possible to present the vast majority of them to a non-physicist without sacrificing accuracy. (See Allan Adam's opening lecture on QM or Feynman's QED, Character of Physical Law, etc).(2) Non-physicists who are intrigued by words like “uncertainty” and “indeterminacy,” but are too lazy to do the serious work it takes to understand them.
There is a vast difference in loving music and creating music others love.For example, I love music. I feel that I have a genuine interest in it. I can't play any instruments and do not know music theory
More precisely, it is possible to present a small, carefully chosen sample of the vast majority of them to a non-physicist without sacrificing accuracy. For example, you mentioned Feynman's The Character of Physical Law, which I agree is an excellent layman's presentation. But it is an excellent layman's presentation of...not very much, from the scientist's point of view. It gives you a taste of what's out there, and a quick overview of our current theories, but that's all. It certainly doesn't give an explanation of difficult and important concepts like the ones Hestenes mentions. At least Feynman is honest enough to admit that he's leaving a lot out; many scientists, when presenting to lay people, fail miserably at doing that.it is possible to present the vast majority of them to a non-physicist without sacrificing accuracy.