More articles like Feynman's Value of Science (1955)?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the appreciation of science and its value, as articulated by Richard Feynman in "The Value of Science." The main argument is that while society celebrates art and literature, science is often undervalued, particularly when pursued for its own sake. The complexity and foundational knowledge required to appreciate science can alienate the general public, who may not recognize its intrinsic beauty and enjoyment. Participants express a desire for more writings by scientists that explore the philosophy of science beyond traditional historical or philosophical frameworks. References to Feynman's other works, such as "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out," are suggested for further exploration. Additionally, a comparison is made to Henri Poincaré's earlier work, which echoes Feynman's sentiments but diverges into discussions about truth and the nature of reality, hinting at deeper philosophical implications. Overall, the conversation highlights a shared belief in the profound beauty of scientific inquiry and the need for more accessible discussions on its value.
crashcat
Messages
46
Reaction score
33
I just read Feynman's The Value of Science and really appreciated his perspective. We generally value art, literature, and poetry but if you want to do science for the sake of science people take offense. It takes years to build a foundation before you can appreciate it, so the general public will never understand that it is beautiful and worth doing because of the grand feelings available to you which I think exceeds any other art, and because it is enjoyable for it's own sake. Ditto mathematics.

SO... anyone have more articles or books like this? On a sort of philosophy of science (that isn't what historians or philosophers mean when they write about the philosophy of science)? It can be broader than simply explaining an appreciation about science. I just want scientists writing about science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm told that many pro athletes feel the same way.
 
crashcat said:
I just read Feynman's The Value of Science and really appreciated his perspective. We generally value art, literature, and poetry but if you want to do science for the sake of science people take offense. It takes years to build a foundation before you can appreciate it, so the general public will never understand that it is beautiful and worth doing because of the grand feelings available to you which I think exceeds any other art, and because it is enjoyable for it's own sake.
I hadn't seen this, thanks for posting the link.

I absolutely love this early paragraph:
"I believe that a scientist looking at non-scientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy - and when he talks about a non-scientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter. Since the question of the value of science is not a scientific subject, this talk is dedicated to proving my point - by example." - R. P. Feynman

I think he may have succeeded in this talk.
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
Hornbein said:
I'm told that many pro athletes feel the same way.
I can believe it. Maybe this is true of any high-skill deep thing.
 
I found an article written by Poincaré in sometime before 1912, literally also called The Value of Science. The first paragraph mirrors Feynman, but then it diverges considerably. He describes how Truth is the only thing that is beautiful, and so the arduous search for it is worthwhile. Also, stuff like how the material world cannot be taken to be real, the only objective reality is the models of the material world shared by intelligent beings. He says that ethics and natural philosophy are two different things with no overlap, and they are both a search for truth. I was thinking this sounds Hermetic/Masonic… and I found a website claiming he was a Freemason. So maybe.

Poincare Value of Science
(scroll past the translator's introduction)
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top