HackerTube.dev

The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman

Sképseis · 179.8K views · 2013-01-20 · 1:03

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

A one-minute clip of Richard Feynman describing the scientific method: guess a law, compute its consequences, and compare with experiment. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

On Hacker News

HN quotes it as the crispest statement of what science is, usually when a theory clashes with evidence.

Recommended by 2 HN people across 2 months · HN mentions 2014–2023

Topics

Scientific method & science communicationFundamental physics
Search by tags
feynmanscientific methodexperimentphilosophy of science

What people said

ddingus · 2022-08 · Strong recommendation

[VIDEO] That is the scientific method. And it is presented by one of our best ever thinkers. Simulation fits right up front in the, "First we guess it" part of the method. That is what happened here. Now don't get me wrong. It is a good guess, but that is all it is. Next step is to compute the consequences. Simulation applies here too. We can arrive at something we could compare to nature, the authority. That has not happened. Until it does, words like "evidence" are well out of reasonable bounds. Simulation as an input to the time tested, production proven scientific method is hardly controversial. Saying that any kind of science has happened yet is and should be controversial! No science has been done, yet we see words like "evidence" and "shows" I do not know what "scientific process" means. Feels a bit more like a P.T. Barnum style upsell for potential money getting than it does science when the sim work is framed this way. If you ask me, the people doing that are jumping the gun. The upsell is unnecessary. Simulation suggests water may seperate into two different liquids when in these conditions... The differences are small, but really important. Stuff line this tends to add right up and suddenly we will have a generation of people who are not well trained skeptics able to do solid science. Given the rapid pace of change, and how compelling this stuff can be, I feel it is important to hold the line on solid science.

Read the original HN comment ↗
wizardforhire · 2017-10 · Recommendation

Uggggghhhh, it's all fun and games to read about these wackos until you have to experience them in real life. Until you witness the deaths their bullheaded stupidity cause first hand it's humane to be apologetic to their plight. We're all ignorant, only the stupid defend their ignorance. This is what makes them dangerous. It's hard to admit you're wrong when your entire sense of self is wrapped up in your world view. Here's a Feynman chasser/refresher on what science is. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
bonoboTP · 2023-08 · Reference

Or his steps to do science: 1. Guess 2. Compute consequences 3. Compare with experiment - if they disagree, the guess was wrong. [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Sképseis, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources