Great Minds: Richard Feynman – The Uncertainty Of Knowledge
Great Minds, Great Words: Richard Feynman – The Uncertainty of Knowledge … The Nature and Purpose of the Universe. Playlist “Great Minds, Great Words”: • www.youtube.com — Please subscribe to Science & Reason: • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com • www.youtube.com — Richard Feynman (1918-1988) was an American physicist known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics and the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as in particle physics (he proposed the parton model). For his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. He developed a widely used pictorial representation scheme for the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles, which later became known as Feynman diagrams. During his lifetime, Feynman became one of the best-known scientists in the world. He assisted in the development of the atomic bomb and was a member of the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In addition to his work in theoretical physics, Feynman has been credited with pioneering the field of quantum computing, and introducing the concept of nanotechnology (creation of devices at the molecular scale). He held the Richard Chace Tolman professorship in theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology. Feynman was a keen …
@paolo27th History has shown that Geniuses had a hard time with new discoveries and were given the cold shoulder, Darwin grew in strength to oppose religion. Evolution is wrong because many scientists disagree with the evidence. What did the chinese scientist say? In china you can criticise evolution but not the government, in the usa, evolution can’t be criticised but the government can?? You have been sent the names from science, enjoy!
@the0fart0machine Geniuses made discoveries and supported them with evidence that could not be rationally refuted. Oh,and Darwin was one of them.
Your modern day “crackpot geniuses” on the other hand have nothing to show apart from “evolution is wrong because I say so”.These people are ridiculed because they try to turn science into a matter of personal/political/religious opinion.If they presented irrefutable evidence they`d become demi-gods like the ones of the past.
Still waiting for names.
@paolo27th Ben Stein, who is he??? That seems a strange statement, solid scientific theory? Crackpot scientists? Looking back in history the geniuses were viewed as crackpot. Newton, kepler, faraday etc.
@the0fart0machine Lol, if they didn`t speak out how do you know about them? Is that what Ben Stein told you?
But yes, scientists speaking out against evolution would face the same consequences as if they claimed the sun revolved around the earth. They`d be ridiculed for opposing a solid scientific theory with nothing but a crackpot dream and lose their respectability in front of their colleagues – and rightly so.
Anyways, I`m keep waiting for those names.
@paolo27th It is well known that many scientists don’t speak out against evolution because their academic careers will be over and they will face a hostile reaction from orthodox scientists. Criticizing evolution will not be tolerated in the uk and usa. The evolutionists are a very touchy bunch.
@the0fart0machine Ok then, who are those scientists then? They`d have to be pretty famous if they debunked a scientific theory as solid as evolution. I`ll be waiting for names.
@paolo27th I don’t do religion or church mate! The maths, DNA and fossils are from scientists with nothing to do with the church.
@jffryh It’s a nice thought, but the Universe is just too big and inhospitable for us to travel to or survive any other planet. Life may be plentiful, but *our* kind of life is tethered to Earth, because of incomprehensible interplanetary distances and 4 billion years of adapting to this one planet’s characteristics.
@reclusivesage I’d like to think that if we could have been mature enough to not destroy ourselves (climate change), that we could have had the capacity to eventually colonize the galaxy.
@the0fart0machine “The maths, DNA and recent knowledge in paleotology findings do not support evolution.” I guess you should learn your maths, biology and paleontology from places other than your church.
@the0fart0machine Hmm… you’re gonna have to be more specific, I’m afraid. What is the exact problem with probability and the theory of evolution?
@plevyman Probability.
@the0fart0machine Interesting, let’s start with the first one. So what exactly do you mean, the maths doesn’t support evolution?
@VesusSheist You don’t know Dawkins, you think he is your friend??
@plevyman That’s better a bit more grown up. From what I have seen, evolution does not have a leg to stand on. The maths, DNA and recent knowledge in paleotology findings do not support evolution.
@the0fart0machine It wasn’t a defence. It was me pointing out how stupid your post was.
And what exactly was I supposed to be defending evolution from? Because your scorn doesn’t really worry me, to be honest, seeing as it has no facts or logical argument to back it up.
@the0fart0machine Are you some sort of Richard Dawkins stalker? Don’t you have anything better to do than troll videos and complain about some biologist?
@plevyman People like yourself who support evolution fantasy always get personal. That’s your only defence!
@the0fart0machine Dear oh dear. You saying “Ha Ha!” doesn’t prove anything, except how pathetic you are.
@the0fart0machine Dear oh dear. You think that saying “Ha Ha!” proves anything, except how pathetic you are?
@plevyman Dawkins talks a lot of sense??? Ha Ha!
@the0fart0machine Dawkins talks a lot of sense, actually.
You, on the other hand, seem only to be capable of recycling hysterical fantasies of the likes of Richard Milton. Milton is crazy enough – you take it a step further by uncritically swallowing what he says. He’s a charlatan, his uninformed ramblings have been shown up time and time again – if you believe in him then you must be incredibly gullible.
@plevyman Your the deluded one mate, the only tripe is Dawkins.
@the0fart0machine Haha, Dawkins censored Milton? No, Milton’s article was rejected because it was complete tripe.
Really, if you are going to bang on about Richard Milton then it only shows how deluded you are.
@the0fart0machine Got any evidence of that? No? I didn’t think so.