Rating: 
Summary: great lectures, if you approach without preconceptions
Review: A lot of the negative reviews have more to do with the readers' preconceptions than with the book. For example, one reviewer, a music teacher, is upset because Feynman seems to insinuate that if you don't see the wonder of science, you have something wrong with you. Then this person writes something to the effect that he/she would like to tell Feynman that he is a dumb slob for not seeing music education as wonderful, inspiring, etc. Of course, the mistaken notion is that simply because Feynman loved physics he must therefore not like anything outside of it. Wrong! Does this person not know that Feynman was a great drummer, and often loved to share his music with others? He was also very concerned with education in general. Not to mention, I doubt if Feynman would even think or say to someone that he couldn't appreciate science as much as Feynman could. But obviously this teacher has thought of saying an analogous statement about music to Feynman.As for Feynman's insinuation, I agree. If you can't see the beauty that physics reveals about the universe, something is wrong with you. Beauty comes in many packages and unless we can see it in its myriad forms (whether through physics, music, or math, etc.) we are deficient people. We don't have to be scientists to appreciate science, nor do we need to work in labs to be experimentalists. The world is a big enough lab. Phenomena surround us. As long as we are curious and have a sense of wonder, we can appreciate science. These lectures reveal a philosophy that is not known to many people nowadays. Just for that, I would give the book two stars. Feynman's style and wit in addition would make me add 1-2 stars. But what it reveals about Feynman makes it better than 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as Surely You're Joking
Review: Although this book is probably the more socially significant of the two, I prefer the light heartedness of Surely You're Joking. This book is a series of collected lectures, so the Feynman that is presented here is the public Feynman, not private, enthusiast, who comes through so brilliantly in the almost stream of consciousness style of writing in Surely You're Joking.
Rating: 
Summary: Feynman: "I have no idea."
Review: Beginning his first discourse, Feynman says that he will not offer anything "that could not easily have been said by the philosophers of the seventeenth century." He's right (Descartes and Pascal offered particularly interesting discussions of uncertainty). He says that he will "leave the more ridiculous of my statements for the next two lectures." He's right again, but it's interesting stuff. (Actually, he makes most of his "more ridiculous" statements in the second lecture).
The "meaning of it all"? As the eminent citizen-scientist states again and again, "I don't know." For Feynman this is cause for excitement. He finds ignorance to be the fuel of the scientist's imagination, and thus a wonderful thing. I recall Pascal's observation that "it is a wise ignorance which knows itself" and that in knowledge of one's ignorance it becomes apparent that "it is not certain that everything is uncertain." Feynman agrees but is clearly enamored with uncertainty; he finds precision in the sciences to be both highly desirable (he says "fun") and ultimately impossible (as did Pascal).
This small collection of transcribed lectures addresses the areas where the ideas of science overlap the ideas of philosophy, religion, and politics. As Feynman admits at the outset, he's out of his depth here. He's right. He describes agnosticism (uncertainty) and mislabels it "atheism" (both theism and atheism make truth claims -- that God does or does not exist -- and thus both claim a certainty); and he suggests that "Arab" is a religion. His differentiation between "ordinary" religion and "the elegant theology that belongs to it" is not unusual. His perception of religion as having three fundamental aspects -- metaphysical, ethical, and inspirational -- is fairly insightful. His suggestion that science has factually undermined the metaphysical aspect is simplistic and fraught with internal contradictions that Feynman seems to barely notice. Here he struggles to retain his uncertainty. The refrain that religion has no place for doubt presupposes what is, and what is not, acceptable to doubt. It also ignores thinkers like Augustine, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Lewis, and so many other theists who examine the reality of uncertainty (or, the uncertainty of reality) more deliberately than does Feynman. The accusation might be reasonably made against "ordinary" religion but cannot be applied to the whole of theism. (The same accusation might be made against [Feynman's?] scientism). In a series of lectures in which I don't recall the mention of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Schrodinger, Godel, or almost any great scientific mind, Feynman cites the caustic dramatist, Voltaire, as an example of a great mind. Voltaire? Do we wonder why? ("certainly" not)
Where one might find Feynman's positions arguable or inadequately conceived, it's difficult to find them offensive in that whenever Feynman finds himself becoming too dogmatic he quickly offers another "I don't know." I understand why people like Feynman so. He's fun. Brash although self-effacing. Doesn't take himself too seriously. I see in other's reviews that Feynman followers do not consider this volume to be the physicist at his best. I believe they are right. (But, of course, "I don't know"). Feynman on the importance of ignorance: "all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses .. and you cannot know.." "I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know."
Rating:
Summary: Feynman: "I have no idea."
Review: Beginning his first discourse, Feynman says that he will not offer anything "that could not easily have been said by the philosophers of the seventeenth century." He's right (Descartes and Pascal offered particularly interesting discussions of uncertainty). He says that he will "leave the more ridiculous of my statements for the next two lectures." He's right again, but it's interesting stuff. (Actually, he makes most of his "more ridiculous" statements in the second lecture).
The "meaning of it all"? As the eminent citizen-scientist states again and again, "I don't know." For Feynman this is cause for excitement. He finds ignorance to be the fuel of the scientist's imagination, and thus a wonderful thing. I recall Pascal's observation that "it is a wise ignorance which knows itself" and that in knowledge of one's ignorance it becomes apparent that "it is not certain that everything is uncertain." Feynman agrees but is clearly enamored with uncertainty; he finds precision in the sciences to be both highly desirable (he says "fun") and ultimately impossible (as did Pascal).
This small collection of transcribed lectures addresses the areas where the ideas of science overlap the ideas of philosophy, religion, and politics. As Feynman admits at the outset, he's out of his depth here. He's right. He describes agnosticism (uncertainty) and mislabels it "atheism" (both theism and atheism make truth claims -- that God does or does not exist -- and thus both claim a certainty); and he suggests that "Arab" is a religion. His differentiation between "ordinary" religion and "the elegant theology that belongs to it" is not unusual. His perception of religion as having three fundamental aspects -- metaphysical, ethical, and inspirational -- is fairly insightful. His suggestion that science has factually undermined the metaphysical aspect is simplistic and fraught with internal contradictions that Feynman seems to barely notice. Here he struggles to retain his uncertainty. The refrain that religion has no place for doubt presupposes what is, and what is not, acceptable to doubt. It also ignores thinkers like Augustine, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Lewis, and so many other theists who examine the reality of uncertainty (or, the uncertainty of reality) more deliberately than does Feynman. The accusation might be reasonably made against "ordinary" religion but cannot be applied to the whole of theism. (The same accusation might be made against [Feynman's?] scientism). In a series of lectures in which I don't recall the mention of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Schrodinger, Godel, or almost any great scientific mind, Feynman cites the caustic dramatist, Voltaire, as an example of a great mind. Voltaire? Do we wonder why? ("certainly" not)
Where one might find Feynman's positions arguable or inadequately conceived, it's difficult to find them offensive in that whenever Feynman finds himself becoming too dogmatic he quickly offers another "I don't know." I understand why people like Feynman so. He's fun. Brash although self-effacing. Doesn't take himself too seriously. I see in other's reviews that Feynman followers do not consider this volume to be the physicist at his best. I believe they are right. (But, of course, "I don't know"). Feynman on the importance of ignorance: "all of the things we say in science, all of the conclusions, are uncertain, because they are only conclusions. They are guesses .. and you cannot know.." "I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know."
Rating: 
Summary: Bland essays which at times border on blabbering.
Review: Feynman has given us a fine mess to deal with here. Reading the book requires ones whole being in order to be able to concentrate on and actually understand what he is trying to convey to us in these three lectures. On one side, the things he talks about in, I guess, his own particular way are down right raw in their articulation. On the other side, some things he talks about are, to me at least, brilliant deductions deriving from his observations of the world we're living in. Not all of which I can fully agree with though. I only wish I had paid more attention in my physics classes and read more on the parts of physics Feynman played a major role in during his life, because then I feel I would have been able to deduct for myself where some of his ideas in the present book are coming from. The editors of the book have obviously left Feynman's use of language in tact, which might well be a pro, but I also think one should have been there inside the lecture room with Feynman doing his thing in order to appreciate his genius fully. The present book's three lectures give a glimps, and nothing more, of what the author was all about when venturing outside his beloved field of physics. A tough nut to crack when starting to read, but a delight once one gets the hang of his down-to-earth use of language. Reading some of his other books, as well as some of the books written about him, might be of help in figuring out what he must have been like in person and what his vision on life was. This book by itself cannot do the trick and might even dissuade some generally interested people to read more on Feynman, which would be a true shame.
Rating: 
Summary: Feynman's limits...
Review: I always loved Feynman's books on Physics. This time, for the first time, I am seeing Feynman completely out of depth, as he often claims he is when it comes to Philosophy. A lot of biases are seen in this book, for example Feynman refers to religions and says...'no matter what religion, be he Arab or buddhist' - Arab is not a religion !! Slang and colloquialism apart, other biases come through as he rubbishes Russian achievements by claiming only partly that Communism suppressed freedom, but more by claiming that Socialism prevented creative inventions. This surely goes against the reality of some of the best works of medicine and mathematics originating from Russia, not to mention masterpieces of literature. Feynman has truly spoken like a commoner here, and yete - to his credit, he precisely claims to do so and hence is not guilty of slander, just inaccurate and bigoted views, but who doesnt have them !! I continue to love reading Feynman, but for those who expect a book on the lines of his other classics, this book is disastrously short, more so with its presumptuous title.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing, but it's still Feynman
Review: I definitely misjudged this book when I bought it. I didn't realize it comprised of a few lectures from many years ago. I think there is a lot of interesting discussions on various topics (mostly political) as seen from a scientist's point of view (hence, the five star rating). I think that the discussion in the second lecture which dealt primarily with religion was lengthy. I definitely was not anticipating reading about that. But I nevertheless found Feynman's style engaging and read the book from cover to cover without losing interest. I would recommend this book to hardcore Feynman fans, but I would recommend examining other materials by and about him first. That is because I think it is a mere footnote of what he has to teach.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant - Opinionated - Important For The Ages.
Review: Richard Feynman is widely regarded as one of a handful of distinct geniuses of physics of the last century and perhaps the most famous and charismatic in his field, second only to Einstein. I have to be honest to admit that I can barely read most of his scientific work. I'm just not that smart. But he was also humorous and wise and this book is more about his general belief system and other matters. Even his prose is not easy reading. His sentences are so long and complex and so well-constructed that the reader feels like he's swimming on the surface of the deepest part of the ocean. Whole lectures feel perfectly designed and complete, all in a curious, Woody Allen, Jewish persona. I actually believe and follow his worldview, which was roughly analagous to Einstein's. They were Secular Humanists. They believed that God if he exists, only manifests in a very distant, abstract sense. Both were loathe to accept specific religious views. It is Feynman's view that science rejects the type of absolute certainty at the core of most mainstream religious views of the world. Interestingly, he includes Soviet Communism as a type of religion, which is understandable when you think about it. Much of this book is really about the intersection of science and philosophy. He asks: how do we justify right and wrong and other human standards in a world without such a self-invented reward-and-punishment system. This is surely one of the questions for the ages, one that Feynman clearly believes is beyond the inherent limits of the scientific worldview. He believed that the flaw was inherent in human makeup, and that the solution was also there - not in the science but in the application. His example was: why is there no water system in the slums of Rio? The money to improve people's lives is there. The will to action is not. Both Feynman and Einstein considered capitalism a necessary but untrustworthy system, and had political leanings toward the Left. Feynman discusses the serious responsibilities involved with science, which has in the 20th century been the Pandora's box, bringing enormous forces and power into the world for either good or abuse or evil. He puts forward perhaps 6 absolute truths that allow for improved human interaction and the greater good of mankind. Most are obliquely political in nature, democracy, freedom of speech, separation of science from exterior interests or intervention, the value of uncertainty, But in the end, his combined belief system is unclear. It lacks something that the human spirit requires for complete fulfillment. He fully recognized this and I don't fault him for it. The paradox he attempts to address are inherent in the basic fabric of the world, and if he did think that he knew the answers he would be a different animal altogether. Considering the direction the nation has taken these last few years, his voice is sorely missed.
Rating:
Summary: A Brilliant, Clear Thinker With a Great Sense of Humor
Review: Richard Feynman was, as evidenced by his Nobel Peace Prize in physics, a fantastically talented physicist. He was also, as evidenced by his Oersted Medal for Teaching, a very gifted educator. The Meaning of it All, a transcription of three lectures delivered at the University of Washington in 1963, provides an interesting window on his unusual combination of these two very different talents. This is no treatise on physics but is instead Feynman given free reign to express his views on the applicability of science to other areas of society. In fact, the title is a bit misleading and implies a grander scope than is actually covered. The actual lecture series was titled "A Scientist Looks at Society" and I suspect Feynman would have preferred this more prosaic but accurate title for this posthumously published book. The three lectures were titled "The Uncertainty of Science," "The Uncertainty of Values" and "This Unscientific Age." The organization and quality of the three lectures is uneven, but for the most part they all shine with Feynman's clear thinking and sparkling wit. By way of example, here is what he said during his introductory remarks: "New in this difficult business of talking about the impact of one field on those of another, I shall start at the end that I know. I do know about science. I know its ideas and its methods, its attitudes toward knowledge, the sources of its progress, its mental discipline. And therefore, in this first lecture, I shall talk about the science that I know, and I shall leave the more ridiculous of my statements for the next two lectures, at which, I assume, the general law is that the audiences will be smaller." Feynman is at his best as he discusses critical importance of a comfort level with uncertainty, critical thinking and judgment based on observation. His discussion of the conflict between Christianity and science is thought provoking. He slips a bit in his second lecture as he transitions abruptly from his religion-science discussion to the topic of the US-USSR competition, a topic which is not treated clearly enough or in sufficient depth to present a well-developed point of view. This is a very quick, engaging read and will be enjoyed by both Feynman fans and those just looking for a peek at the thoughts of one of the more talented minds of the twentieth century.
Rating:
Summary: Food for thought
Review: There's a lot of material here to think about. I found Feynman's thesis that doubt (or, more precisely, uncertainty) is the motivation that drives progress in science to be very interesting. In a sense, this relates to the axiom "the more you know, the more you don't know." Every answer that we learn from science raises additional questions that need to be explored.
I also found Feynman's analysis of religion to be interesting as well. His three aspects of religion (metaphysical, ethical, and inspirational) show promise in helping me to better understand some of my own (often contradictory) attitudes about religion. This section is probably the section that will provide me with the most food for reflection.
Finally, his discussion of issues in society actually reminds me of the arguments in "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences" by John Allen Paulos. In both cases, the failure of people to grasp basic fundamental principles of science or mathematics leads them to behave in ways that aren't necessarily in their best interests.
|
