Ebook rtf mathematics Feynman, Richard Surely You’…

did
understand, and 
they
tried to explain it to me, but they couldn't explain it to 
me! 
So the others in the group told me to write down why I thought the fragmentation of knowledge was not a problem of ethics. I went back to my 
dormitory room and I wrote out carefully, as best I could, what I thought the subject of "the ethics of equality in education" might be, and I gave 
some examples of the kinds of problems I thought we might be talking about, For instance, in education, you increase differences. If someone's good 
at something, you try to develop his ability, which results in differences, or inequalities. So if education increases inequality, is this ethical? Then, 
after giving some more examples, I went on to say that while "the fragmentation of knowledge" is a difficulty because the complexity of the world 
makes it hard to learn things, in light of my definition of the 
realm
of the subject, I couldn't see how the fragmentation of knowledge had anything to 
do with anything 
approximating
what the ethics of equality in education might more or less be. 
The next day I brought my paper into the meeting, and the guy said, "Yes, Mr. Feynman has brought up some very interesting questions we 
ought to discuss, and we'll put them aside for some possible future discussion." They completely missed the point. I was trying to define the problem, 
and then show how "the fragmentation of knowledge" didn't have anything to do with it. And the reason that nobody got anywhere in that conference 
was that they hadn't clearly defined the subject of "the ethics of equality in education," and therefore no one knew exactly what they were supposed 
to talk about. 
There was a sociologist who had written a paper for us all to read--something he had written ahead of time. I started to read the damn thing, and 
my eyes were coming out: I couldn't make head nor tail of it! I figured it was because I hadn't read any of the books on that list. I had this uneasy 
feeling of "I'm not adequate," until finally I said to myself, "I'm gonna stop, and read 
one sentence
slowly, so I can figure out what the hell it means." 
So I stopped--at random--and read the next sentence very carefully. I can't remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: "The individual 
member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels." I went back and forth over it, and translated. You 
know what it means? "People read." 
Then I went over the next sentence, and I realized that I could translate that one also. Then it became a kind of empty business: "Sometimes 
people read; sometimes people listen to the radio," and so on, but written in such a fancy way that I couldn't understand it at first, and when I finally 
deciphered it, there was nothing to it. 
There was only one thing that happened at that meeting that was pleasant or amusing. At this conference, 
every word
that every guy said at the 
plenary session was so important that they had a stenotypist there, typing every goddamn thing. Somewhere on the second day the stenotypist came 
up to me and said, "What profession are you? Surely not a professor." 
"I 
am
a professor," I said. 
"Of what?" 

---

"Of physics--science." 
"Oh! 
That
must be the reason," he said. 
"Reason for what?" 
He said, "You see, I'm a stenotypist, and I type everything that is said here. Now, when the other fellas talk, I type what they say, but I don't 
understand what they're saying. But every time 
you
get up to ask a question or to say something, I understand exactly what you mean--what the 
question is, and what you're saying--so I thought you 
can't
be a professor!" 
There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, 
and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I'm telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and 
true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have 
atomic weapons, any war and we're doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from 
place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we're all even. 
Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the 
way home. 
The next day one of the guys in our group said, "I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the 
summary of our conference." 
I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a 
theory
that there's only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow 
we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn't take into account the 
real
reason for the differences between countries--that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to 
grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn't the 
stuff
, but the power to 
make
the 
stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn't understand it. They didn't understand technology; they 
didn't understand their time. 
The conference made me so nervous that a girl I knew in New York had to calm me down. "Look," she said, "you're shaking! You've gone 
absolutely nuts! Just t ake it easy, and don't take it so seriously. Back away a minute and look at what it is." So I thought about the conference, how 
crazy it was, and it wasn't so bad. But if someone were to ask me to participate in something like that again, I'd shy away from it like mad--I mean 
zero! No! Absolutely not! And I still get invitations for this kind of thing today. 
When it came time to evaluate the conference at the end, the others told how much they got out of it, how successful it was, and so on. When 
they asked me, I said, "This conference was worse than a Rorschach test: There's a meaningless inkblot, and the others ask you what you think you 
see, but when you tell them, they start arguing with you! 
Even worse, at the end of the conference they were going to have another meeting, but this time the public would come, and the guy in charge of 
our group has the 
nerve
to say that since we've worked out so much, there won't be any time for public discussion, so we'll just 
tell
the public all the 
things we've worked out. My eyes bugged out: I didn't think we had worked out a damn thing! 
Finally, when we were discussing the question of whether we had developed a way of having a dialogue among people of different disciplines--
our second basic "problem"--I said that I noticed something interesting. Each of us talked about what we thought the "ethics of equality" was, from 
our own point of view, without paying any attention to the other guy's point of view. For example, the historian proposed that the way to understand 
ethical problems is to look historically at how they evolved and how they developed; the international lawyer suggested that the way to do it is to see 
how in fact people actually act in different situations and make their arrangements; the Jesuit priest was always referring to "the fragmentation of 
knowledge"; and I, as a scientist, proposed that we should isolate the problem in a way analogous to Galileo's techniques for experiments; and so on. 
"So, in my opin ion," I said, "we had no dialogue at all. Instead, we had nothing but chaos!" 
Of course I was attacked, from all around. "Don't you think that order can come from chaos?" 
"Uh, well, as a general principle, or . . . I didn't understand what to do with a question like "Can order come from chaos?" Yes, no, what of it? 
There were a lot of fools at that conference--pompous fools--and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to 
them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools--guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they 
are with all this hocus pocus--THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn't a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! 
And that's what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset. I'm not going to get upset like that again, so I won't