Chapter 35 True Wisdom in Laughing Part 5-5

In the early 1950s, I briefly suffered from a common problem among middle-aged people: I go around giving lectures on the philosophy of science—how science satisfies human curiosity, how it provides you with a new worldview, gives you a lot of opportunity and power, and so on.But the problem is, looking at the atomic bomb that was just released at that time, everyone should think about whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for human beings to have so much power?In addition, I am also thinking about the relationship between science and religion.About this time I was invited to New York to attend a seminar on "The Moral Problem of Equality."

They had already held a seminar on Long Island for older people before this, but this year they decided to bring some younger people together to discuss papers they had summarized in other seminars. Before I left, they sent a book list to everyone, which was "Some books you might like to read; if there are any books you want to recommend to others, please send them to us, and we will send them to you." Keep it in the library so others can read it." After receiving this book list, I scanned it from the first page: I have not read any of the books listed there.I feel a little out of place - I'm not the right person for this seminar at all.I went on to the second page: I still haven't read a single one.After reading the entire book list, I realized that I haven't read any of the books they listed.It seems that I must be some kind of idiot and illiterate!There are many good books listed there, like Thomas Jefferson's "On Freedom" (On Freedom) and so on.Yes, there are several authors' books I have read, one is Heisenberg (Werner Heisenberg), and there are Schrödinger and Einstein, but Einstein wrote "My Old Years". "

(My Later Years), Xue Dingyu wrote "What is Life" (What is Life), which is different from the works I have read before.So I really feel like I'm a little bit over my head, I really shouldn't be at that party. Maybe I'll just sit by the side obediently and listen more and talk less. I ran to the first introductory meeting and someone stood up and said we had two issues to discuss.The first one is a bit unclear - what has to do with ethics, equality, but I can't understand what the problem is. The second question was, "We want to demonstrate with our methods that people from different disciplines can communicate and dialogue." They brought in international lawyers, historians, Jesuit priests, rabbis, and scientists (that's me )etc.

Immediately, my logical mind began to reason like this: the second question can be ignored, because if it works, it will work; if it doesn't work, it won't work.In other words, if there is no dialogue, we don't need to prove whether we can talk, to "discuss" whether we can talk!So the more important question is the first one, but I don't understand that question. I was about to raise my hand and ask, "Can you please define the problem a little bit more clearly," But then I thought, "No, I'm the one who doesn't know anything, and I'd better listen first before I get into trouble again."

The group I participated in was discussing "Ethical Issues of Educational Equality". And in the group meetings, the Jesuit pastor kept talking about the "fragmentation of knowledge."He'd say, "The real problem with the morality of educational equality is the fragmentation of knowledge." What the pastor was talking about had something to do with the situation in the 13th century, when education was dominated by the Catholic Church and the world was simple. God is on high, everything comes from God, everything is very systematic.But today, it is not so easy to figure everything out, so knowledge is fragmented.I don't think "fragmentation of knowledge" has anything to do with "everything", but he never clearly defined "everything", so I can't prove it.

Finally I asked, "What are the moral issues related to the fragmentation of knowledge?" His answer was just a cloud of fog, and I said, "I don't understand," but everyone else said they understood it all, And try to explain it to me, but they don't understand at all! So other members of the group asked me to write down why I don't think the fragmentation of knowledge is a moral issue.Back in the dormitory where I was staying, I wrote down as carefully as I could what I thought the "moral issue of educational equality" might mean, and I gave a few more examples that I guess were relevant to our topic.In education, for example, we always make more differences.If someone is good at something, our education system will help him develop that talent, and the result will be difference, that is, inequality.Is this the ethical thing to do?After citing a few more examples, I said that although "fragmentation of knowledge" is a big problem, because the world is indeed very complicated, making learning very difficult; but as far as the topic itself is concerned, I don't understand the fragmentation of knowledge and the equality of education. What does it have to do with moral issues.

The next day, I presented my arguments at the meeting, and they said, "Yes, Mr. Feynman has made some very interesting points that we should discuss; we'll file them for now and discuss them later." They all Mistake. I'm trying to define the problem clearly.The main reason why the seminars are clueless is that they don't even have a clearly defined topic, so everyone doesn't know what to say. There was a sociologist at the meeting who wrote a paper that we all read. He wrote it before he came to the meeting. As soon as I read his article, my eyeballs almost fell out. I couldn’t understand what he was writing. What!I guess that's because I didn't finish the books on the list.I felt uneasy and felt "not good enough," but finally I said to myself, "Stop, read a sentence slowly, and try to figure out what the hell it's talking about."

So I stopped -- casually -- and read the sentence carefully.Can’t remember the original text, but it’s very close to this: “Individuals in social areas often obtain information through visual and symbolic channels.” I read it repeatedly and translated it.Do you know what it means? "Everyone reads"! Read the next sentence, and find that that sentence can also be translated, and the whole article becomes extremely empty-"Some people read; some people listen to the radio" and so on; it's just that he uses some very gorgeous packaging, so it's hard to understand at first.When I finally translated it, it didn't say anything at all.

There was only one interesting thing about the meeting.What everyone said in the meeting was so important that they had a shorthand typist there to take everything down.On the second day of the meeting, the stenographer came to me and asked, "What is your profession? You must not be a professor." "I'm just a professor," I said. "Which professor?" "Physical-scientific aspects." "Oh! That's why," he said. "The reason for what?" He said: "Look, I'm a stenographer, and I take down everything people say. But I don't understand anything they say, whereas every time you stand up and ask a question or say something, I can Totally understand what you're saying. That's why I thought you couldn't possibly be a professor!"

There was a dinner during the meeting, and the dean of the seminary gave a speech at the dinner. He seemed nice and "Jewish," and spoke well and skillfully. So although looking back now, I think what he said was ridiculous, but at the time his arguments were very clear and correct.He talked about the great difference in the welfare of countries, which constitutes jealousy, which leads to conflicts; now that we have produced atomic weapons, we will be finished if there is a war.So the correct solution is to reduce the differences between places and move towards peace; and since the United States has so many resources, we should give things to other countries until the state of equal wealth.Everyone listened attentively, full of sacrifice, and felt that it should be done.But before returning to the dormitory, I woke up.

The next day, someone in our group said, "I thought that was a good talk last night, we should give it our full support, and it should be the conclusion of our workshop." I said that the idea of ​​dividing resources equally is based on the theory that there are finite resources in the world, and somehow it seems like we loot a lot from poor countries and therefore should send them back, but that theory doesn't take into account countries The real reason for the difference.The fact is: the development of new technologies for producing food, new machines, and new machines for doing many things;What matters is the ability to make things, not the things themselves.However, now I understand that these people are not engaged in scientific research, do not understand science at all, do not understand what technology is, and they do not understand the era they live in at all. The seminar made me so emotionally tense that a friend of mine in New York had to try to calm me down. "Hey!" she said, "You're shaking! You're so crazy! Take it easy, don't look so hard, take a step back and see things clearly." How ridiculous it is, everything is not so bad. If I'm ever invited to a meeting like this again, I'll run away—never!don't want!But to this day, I still receive such invitations. After the meeting, everyone reviewed the meeting together.Others rave about how productive they were, how successful the meeting was, and so on.When they asked me, I said: "This seminar is worse than doing the Rorschach test. We're all looking at a meaningless blob of ink; other people ask you what you see, but when you say what you see, Others are arguing with you!" To make matters worse, when the meeting is over, they have another meeting.This time even the public came along, and the moderator of our panel boldly said that since we have achieved so much, there is not much time for the public to participate in the discussion, so we just need to tell them the conclusion.My eyes are wide open, and the eyeballs are about to fall out: I don't think we've achieved anything! Finally, we discuss whether we have found a way to allow people from different backgrounds to communicate with each other - our second basic "question".I said I noticed something interesting: each of us talks about what the "moral question of equality" is from our own perspective, regardless of anyone else's perspective.For example, our historians propose that we need to look at how moral problems arise and form historically, so as to understand the problem; international lawyers say that the way to understand this problem is to understand that in different situations, each person's Different responses, different ways of arranging things; Jesuit priests are forever talking about the "fragmentation of knowledge", and I, as a scientist, suggest that the problem should be isolated, a bit like Galileo's technique of experimenting... … "So it seems to me," I said, "that we have no dialogue at all. Instead, we have nothing but chaos!" Of course I was attacked immediately, fully attacked. "Don't you think that order can emerge from chaos?" "Well, as a general law, or..." Faced with such a question, I really don't know what to do. "Can order emerge from chaos?" Yes?Can't?What should I say? There were so many idiots in the conference — idiots in disguise — that drove me nuts.Ordinary idiots are fine, you can talk to them, explain them, and help them get out of their confusion.But pretended idiots - pretending they're not when they're stupid, desperately trying to be admired, to be thought smart and great - that, I can't stand!Ordinary fools don't lie, honest fools are good; but dishonest fools are terrible!And that's what I'm dealing with in meetings - a bunch of pretend smarts, really dumb asses, and I feel pissed off!I decided that I would never get angry like that again, I would never go to this kind of meeting again. Also, I was staying at the Jewish seminary during the conference, and a lot of the young Jewish priests -- I guess they were Orthodox -- were there to study.Since I have a Jewish background, I also know what they're talking about when they talk about "the Talmud"; but I've never looked at the Talmud before.It was a very interesting book. It had a large layout. There was a small square in the corner of each page, which contained the original text of the code; beside the square, other people's comments were written, forming an L-shaped article.The Talmud comes out of a medieval way of thinking, and the things in it have been discussed and discussed over and over again, as if no one else was allowed to add criticism since the 13th, 14th or 15th century, so it has absolutely no modern commentary.The Talmud is a wonderful, great, literature-like thing, with trivial issues and difficult issues, such as questions about teachers, how to teach, and so on.Seminary students told me there were no other translations of the Codex, which intrigued me because it was such a valuable book. One day, two rabbis came to me and said, "We understand that in today's world, if we don't learn a little science, we can't be up-to-date rabbis. So I wanted to ask you some questions." Of course they actually have thousands of ways to learn science, and Columbia University is right next to them; but I also want to know what they want to ask and what they are interested in. They said, "Well, for example, is electricity really fire?" "No," I said, "but... what's the problem?" They said, "The code says you can't light a fire on Saturday. Our question is, can we use appliances on Saturday?" I was stunned.They are not interested in science!The impact of science on their lives is nothing more than whether they can interpret the Talmud better!They are not interested in the outside world and natural phenomena, they are just interested in solving some problems caused by the code! Then one day—I think it was a Saturday—I tried to take the elevator, and there was a man standing there in the elevator.The elevator came, I walked in, and he followed.I said, "What floor?" and was about to press the button. "No, no!" he said. "It's my job." "what?" "Yeah! The students here can't press the button on Saturdays, so I press it for them, because I'm not Jewish, so I can press it. I stand near the elevator entrance, and they tell me which floor to go to, and I will do it for them. according to." This really pissed me off and I wanted to design them so that they would fail at logical sophistry.I grew up Jewish, so I know a lot of logical gags that I can use to find fault.I thought, this is so much fun! My plan is this. First I ask: "Is the idea of ​​a Jew something that anyone can think? If the answer is no, then it is clear that it has no real human value...." They must then answer: "Yes, the Jewish way of thinking is suitable for anyone." Then I'll walk them around and ask, "If you think something is immoral, but you hire someone else to do it, is it okay?" Ethical? For example, would you hire someone to rob for you?" I would slowly push them down the narrow road, slowly and carefully, until I trapped them! Do you know what happened?They're all kosher students, aren't they? They are 10 times smarter than me!Once I was about to drive them to the entrance of the cave, they turned desperately!Twist! --can't remember what they said--and broke free! I thought I came up with some clever, original ideas - they've been discussed in the Codex for thousands of years!So they beat me to the ground and won a great victory. Later, I assured the students that the spark that worried them when they pressed the elevator was not a fire.I said, "Electricity is not the same as fire. It's not a chemical action. Fire is." "Oh?" they said. "Of course, there is also electricity between the atoms in the fire." "Aha!" they said. "Electricity also occurs in every phenomenon in the world." I've even come up with practical ways to solve spark's problems. "If that really bothered you, you could put a capacitor on the switch and there would be no sparking when the power was on or off -- nowhere." But for some reason, they didn't like the idea either. What a disappointment.These people had just begun their lives, but their lives were spent interpreting the Talmud.Come to think of it, in today's day and age, people study to join society and do something—even be a rabbi.But the only reason they are interested in science is because of those old, narrow problems left over from the Middle Ages, other problems encountered in the face of new phenomena, and that's it! Another thing worth mentioning happened at that time.Another question that the seminary students discussed with me is why are there a majority of Jewish people in academia, such as theoretical physics?Those students believe that the reason is that Jews have a tradition of respecting learning: they respect Jewish priests (in fact, they have the function of teachers), and they also respect education.Every Jewish family has passed this tradition down, so if a Jewish kid does well in school, he must be doing well—though maybe he's also a good football player. In the afternoon of the same day, this statement was fulfilled.One of the students invited me to sit in his home.When he introduced me to meet his mother, she clapped with joy.She had just returned from Washington that day, and she said excitedly, "Oh! Today is so perfect. First, I met a general, and now I met a professor!" I know very well that many people will not compare meeting a university professor with meeting a general.They don't think both are equally important or equally good, so I guess there is some truth to what those students are saying!