What Do These Famous Quotes Reveal About the Minds of Great Scientists?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the insights and implications of various famous quotes attributed to notable scientists and thinkers. Participants explore the philosophical and conceptual underpinnings of these quotes, touching on themes related to science, mathematics, and the nature of knowledge. The scope includes theoretical reflections, practical implications, and the interplay between science and philosophy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight Einstein's assertion that "the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible," suggesting a philosophical reflection on the nature of understanding.
  • Others reference Dirac's view that science should be communicated in a way that is understandable to everyone, contrasting it with the complexity often found in poetry.
  • Several quotes emphasize the importance of simplicity in scientific explanations, with Einstein stating, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
  • Hrvoje Nikolic raises a point about scientists sometimes being "too clever to see the obvious," indicating a potential critique of overcomplication in scientific thought.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between theory and practice, with Kurt Lewin asserting that "there is nothing so practical as a good theory," suggesting that theoretical frameworks are essential for practical applications.
  • Some quotes reflect on the nature of quantum mechanics, with Niels Bohr stating that if it hasn't "profoundly shocked you," one hasn't understood it yet, indicating the counterintuitive nature of the field.
  • Others, like Carl Sagan, emphasize the importance of questioning in science, stating, "The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he's one who asks the right questions."
  • There are discussions on the limitations of mathematical descriptions in physics, with Bertrand Russell noting that physics is mathematical not because of our understanding of the physical world, but due to our limited knowledge.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views and interpretations of the quotes, with no clear consensus on the implications or meanings of the statements presented. Participants express differing opinions on the nature of scientific understanding, the role of theory, and the relationship between science and philosophy.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions of key terms such as "understanding" and "theory," which may affect interpretations of the quotes. Additionally, the discussion reflects a variety of philosophical stances, including instrumentalism and positivism, which remain unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the philosophy of science, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the interplay between theoretical and practical aspects of scientific knowledge.

  • #181
If different kinds of entropy are different tools in statisticalphysics, then Gibbs entropy is Swiss knife, while Boltzmann entropy is katana sword.
- Hrvoje Nikolić
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #182
Erwin_quote.png
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Moes and rsk
  • #183
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds, Hamiltonian, Monsterboy and 2 others
  • #184
quote-i-regard-consciousness-as-fundamental-i-regard-matter-as-derivative-from-consciousness-m...jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Moes, Demystifier, rsk and 1 other person
  • #185
"Never measure anything but frequency!"
-Arthur Schawlow

It's creepy how well this advice has aged.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Monsterboy and AlexCaledin
  • #186
RichFeynman_NaturesLongThreads .jpg

- so all the textbook quantum "collapses" must be coming from the universal collapse which is right outside the scope of science! (since it's determining our very thoughts)
 
Last edited:
  • #187
I thought I was at PF. But after reading the posts here I'm thinking I've stumbled into a Tao of Physics forum. :biggrin:

The last guest lecture I attended in college was given by a visiting professor who proved that useful [structured] information can do work. I have always suspected this is the new frontier.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, arivero and pinball1970
  • #188
Ivan Seeking said:
I thought I was at PF. But after reading the posts here I'm thinking I've stumbled into a Tao of Physics forum. :biggrin:

The last guest lecture I attended in college was given by a visiting professor who proved that useful [structured] information can do work. I have always suspected this is the new frontier.
I'd like to know more. Any help?
 
  • #189
Hornbein said:
I'd like to know more. Any help?
I need to be careful. I don't know the state of this school of thought. But the claim was that this explains the Maxwell's Demon paradox.

This is one example of something that was published [Nature Physics].

Maxwell's demon demonstration turns information into energy​

Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the "Maxwell demon" thought experiment devised in 1867.
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: jack action
  • #190
Ivan Seeking said:
I thought I was at PF. But after reading the posts here I'm thinking I've stumbled into a Tao of Physics forum. :biggrin:

Wait, does such thing exist? The author was very disappointed, I think, after an interview with Chew.
 
  • #191
arivero said:
Wait, does such thing exist?
Yes but it sends most physicists into fits.

1633740843052.png
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rsk and atyy
  • #192
Hornbein said:
I'd like to know more. Any help?
See also
The results also verified the generalized Jarzynski equation, which was formulated in 1997 by statistical chemist Christopher Jarzynski of the University of Maryland. The equation defines the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information.
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html

The Jarzynski equality (JE) is an equation in statistical mechanics that relates free energy differences between two states and the irreversible work along an ensemble of trajectories joining the same states. It is named after the physicist Christopher Jarzynski (then at the University of Washington and Los Alamos National Laboratory, currently at the University of Maryland) who derived it in 1996.[1][2] Fundamentally, the Jarzynski equality points to the fact that the fluctuations in the work satisfy certain constraints separately from the average value of the work that occurs in some process...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarzynski_equality
 
  • #193
arivero said:
Wait, does such thing exist? The author was very disappointed, I think, after an interview with Chew.
Ivan Seeking said:
Yes but it sends most physicists into fits.

View attachment 290413
There was also a movie... in fact two movies.

SYNOPSIS: “Mindwalk,” like “My Dinner with Andre,” is a dialogue-driven film, which explores basic philosophical questions. In this case, the principal subject is holistic vs. atomistic ways of viewing the world. The film was directed by Austiran-born Bernt Capra, a Hollywood production designer. He also wrote the story behind the film, which he adapted from the popular book The Turning Point (1983) by his brother Fritjof Capra, noted physicist and environmentalist...
http://www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/mindwalk.htm

 
Last edited:
  • #194
Ivan Seeking said:
Yes but it sends most physicists into fits.

View attachment 290413
Do they actually read it? It is mostly a divulgative text on strong force as understood in the sixties, lot of flavour but not colours. The title is an obvious reference to the original theory of strings, which at that time was named "dual theory of hadrons". The chapter about "hinduism" is an attempt to support Chew's "nuclear democracy", one of the arguments of the bootstrap.

The movies, on the other hand... yes, they send me into fits.

PS: I was wondering about existence of the forum. I didn't know of the films.
 
  • #195
quote-science-cannot-solve-the-ultimate-mystery-of-nature-and-that-is-because-in-the-last-max-...jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, gleem, pinball1970 and 4 others
  • #196
Algebra is the offer made by the devil to the mathematician. The devil says: “I will give you this powerful machine, and it will answer any question you like. All you need to do is give me your soul: give up geometry and you will have this marvellous machine.” . . . the danger to our soul is there, because when you pass over into algebraic calculation, essentially you stop thinking: you stop thinking geometrically, you stop thinking about the meaning.

- Sir Michael Atiyah
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Monsterboy, diogenesNY, BillTre and 1 other person
  • #197
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck

Did this guy just had a bad time or is this always the case ? I haven't read his autobiography yet.
 
  • #198
This is not particularly a unique observation. Conventual beliefs can be so strong that new or radical ideas are summarily rejected or ignored and was particularly common in the medical field. People hold dear that which they strongly believe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre and Monsterboy
  • #199
The idea was elaborated upon by Thomas Kuhn, a science historian/philosopher, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
His major premise was that paradigms were concepts underlying a current understanding of a scientific field.
They provided a standard way to look at things and evaluate results in times of normal science.
However, during times of "crisis" when explanations, for some people, were not up to explaining things in the field, alternative paradigms would arise to explain that which was not being explained satisfactorily.
Since not everyone was in agreement, there will be disagreements.
Some of the people holding to the ideas might not change their minds, but not be convincing to those with the newer way of thinking of things. Their views would vanish from active science when they died off.

Many scientists like this because history and much of their scientific experience seems to support his basic idea.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Monsterboy, diogenesNY and Wrichik Basu
  • #200
BillTre said:
The idea was elaborated upon by Thomas Kuhn, a science historian/philosopher, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
His major premise was that paradigms were concepts underlying a current understanding of a scientific field.
They provided a standard way to look at things and evaluate results in times of normal science.
However, during times of "crisis" when explanations, for some people, were not up to explaining things in the field, alternative paradigms would arise to explain that which was not being explained satisfactorily.
Since not everyone was in agreement, there will be disagreements.
Some of the people holding to the ideas might not change their minds, but not be convincing to those with the newer way of thinking of things. Their views would vanish from active science when they died off.

Many scientists like this because history and much of their scientific experience seems to support his basic idea.
BillTre,

Damn! you beat me to it!

+1 for Thomas Kuhn.

_Structures_ was considered very radical at the time (and still is). Kuhn actually considerably softened his views later in his life and career. I am still pretty fond of the radical Kuhn.

_Structures of Scientific Revolutions_, Columbia University Press 1966. Highly recommended, not the easiest read, but very worthwhile.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
  • #201
And more than a little arrogance is required for creatures that evolved from quantum fluctuations and quark soup, that only exist for a short time and are stuck on a small backwater outpost to think that they might be able to understand the whole shebang.

Michael S. Turner
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy
  • #202
Einstein was a giant. His head was in the clouds, but his feet were on the ground. But those of us who are not that tall have to choose!
- Richard Feynman
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, fresh_42, Hornbein and 1 other person
  • #203
Ivan Seeking said:
My Dinner with Andre
I always thought The Princess Bride should have been subtitled My Dinner with Andre The Giant.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hornbein
  • #204
The more we know, the more we think we know and the less we really know.
-Aristotle (paraphrased)
 
  • #205
When someone tries to convince you that all philosophy is bad, ignore him. His argument can be nothing else but philosophy, and philosophy coming from someone who thinks that all philosophy is bad can be nothing else but bad philosophy.
- Hrvoje Nikolic
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42 and BillTre

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
14K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
9K