"The Value of Science" by Richard Feynman

Richard Feynman wrote a very compelling argument about human nature. He discussed the fact that we feel the need to know, yet will never fulfill this need because there is simply to much that can be explored.

I found that the start of his essay did not really relate to the idea that had the most strength. He began on the topic of science and of course its value. He mentioned the fact that scientist could never answer social problems because they are not science related, that there was no magic formula that could ever solve these problems.

"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell"

Building on this Buddhist proverb, he begins to discuss the idea that science can be used for good or for evil. That essentially, the key is science. He mentions, on passing, that humanity has a need for control. That science can produce something, and there is the need to control what this something may become.

However, Richard does go back to his previous thoughts, relating to how society and science intermingle. He mentions that for some people, science is intellectual enjoyment. He then goes on to say that if it is a scientists responsibility to reflect on the impacts of science on society, then we first must consider the value of society itself. He defines it as an arrangement of things so that people can enjoy things. If science is for personal enjoyment then in must fit into society. Therefore, he is supporting the fact that society and science build of one another, and then affect one another.

From here, he discusses human nature. The thought of existence, the mind-blowing thought of us being here and how we are understanding our surroundings. However, he acknowledges these facts to be to complex for children. That to make a scientist they must have a passion early on in life, that science needs to become more relatable and understandable.

"We must leave the door to the unknown ajar"

Finally, Richard moves to discuss dreams and the fact that they are far bigger then our accomplishments. He then explains that to find understanding is to find the dream. To find understanding between people, cultures and ethnic groups. It is then also to find acceptance, at least to some level. Richard goes on to say that for an individual to admit to not knowing is for them to find an answer.

He then admits that a scientist is socially aware, they understand human downfalls and short-comings. He also states that humankind will never fully know, that mystery is a part of life.

--------

In all honesty, I think he came back full circle in his essay. I understand the line of thinking he was going for but in the end he contradicted himself. He started off by saying that scientists are not responsible for knowing the impact of science on society, but moves to the fact that they are part of society and thus understand this fact.

I also don't believe his essay was so much on the value of science but more on how it relates to the understanding of human existence. That scientists must understand that there will always be a level of unknown, but that we can figure out how things work.

Ultimately, I think his essay was eye opening. It brought to me a level of understanding that a dream will just be a dream until you can admit that you don't know how to accomplish it, from there the answer will arrive.

Unknown Words:

prodigiously

Voltaires

Questions:

Reasonably, if one were to come to terms with the fact that their dream is just a dream, that there will always be a level of unknown, would they happen upon the answer?

Is every decision we make based on science? or can we say that the universe sends us signals to lead us on the path we must follow?