R. P. Feynman on the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

What people said

ars · 2012-12 · Recommendation

> Is this something I should try to avoid with my son, or should I encourage it Avoid. I would avoid spending time learning the names of things. Learn the thing itself, but the name tells you very little. Watch this: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

ckuehne · 2010-07 · Recommendation

Can't upvote you enough for this. By the way, Feynman also knows the difference "between knowing the name of something and knowing something": [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

bane · 2014-08 · Reference

My point is that people often confuse understanding the model with understanding the thing. The model becomes a ritual, it becomes a kind of complex dogma, and when people master the model they claim they understand it. But it's not true, they don't understand the thing, they only understand our description of it. Feynman also addresses this, [VIDEO] The next Monday, when the fathers were all back at work, we kids were playing in a field. One kid says to me, “See that bird? What kind of bird is that?” I said, “I haven’t the slightest idea what kind of a bird it is.” He says, “It’s a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn’t teach you anything!” But it was the opposite. He had already taught me: “See that bird?” he says. “It’s a Spencer’s warbler.” (I knew he didn’t know the real name.) “Well, in Italian, it’s a Chutto Lapittida. In Portuguese, it’s a Bom da Peida. In Chinese, it’s a Chung-long-tah, and in Japanese, it’s a Katano Tekeda. You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You’ll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts.” (I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.) Models are just a complicated way of calling something, not a way of understanding it. Getting experimental results just means you've used the cor

Read the original HN comment ↗