Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Continually avoiding a major point made against your argument...

                                  What, "major point" was that?

    Are you referring to your Feynman quote?     If so: had he lived by YOUR version of HIS philosophy: he'd never have won his Nobel.

              The man was all about experimentation and observation.

     He learned that from his father, who was often mentioned by Feynman, during lectures.

     One anecdote  that some may find interesting: their walks in the woods and how his father would encourage him to look beyond the fact that something in nature exists, but into why and how.

     It saddened him, that while attending college, during a visit home and one of their walks: his dad asked what he was learning in college.

     At that moment, he realized: if he tried to explain what he was learning, there was no way his dad could understand.                               

                            It wasn't an insult or condescension.

                                                Just reality.

@rodman99999

What, "major point" was that?

It’s amazing that you don’t know.

Here’s the quote, one last time:

FEYNMAN: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

What do you think Feynman means by that, Rodman?

How might we fool ourselves? And what is he indicating in saying "and you are the easiest person to fool?"

What steps, would this suggest in a method of empirical inquiry? What variables might he be referencing? Are you aware of the long scientific literature on the subject that would bear on this question in terms of how human beings think? And what steps science often takes to minimize that variable?

Feynman wants us to learn from experience....but it is a *specific type of carefully controlled experience.*  The type that separates scientifically gained knowledge from, say, dowsing, or astrology, or religion, or new age healing crystals etc.

"Try It For Yourself" does not capture the specific rigor of the scientific method.

I’ve given you all the pieces, I’m sure you can put it together in to answering what Feynman meant (and thus how your previous post had ignored Feynman’s warning).

@amir-

                         DAMN, but: that's a sad story!

     Was that around the time that Peter and Boz were having their falling out?

      Or, possibly: after Boz had TacT up and running (maybe didn't want to deal with their combined/older efforts)?    Just guessing!

      I required Boz's assistance a few times and always found him helpful, thankfully.     Always with the software end of things though.

      ie: Once bought a 64 bit laptop, that wouldn't run the 2.2.X program, written in 32 bit (no emulator, that model, year or something).     Important info, not in TacT User Manual.

                    That was the short, sweet and easiest call.

       Still have the dedicated, 32 bit, Toshiba laptop, that I bought for the TacT program.

       Glad I've been able to keep up with maintenance on my own, since there's zero, anywhere else.

                                    That's a pretty piece of gear.

                                          re: flakey channels

         Did you try cleaning all the internal pin connectors?    Especially: the ones from the power supply to the boards?

               They* were known to corrode, at the slightest provocation.

                                           *TacTs' in general

@prof-

           RELAX, Sheldon: we’re not splitting any atoms, here!

....

@prof-

     Your opinions on Richard Feynman's philosophies are irrelevant to me.

     What are your objections to the references, facts and history, regarding electromagnetism and Physics/QED, posted by moi, that you've so easily dismissed, "prof"?

     Just in the spirit of discussing things that might make our systems sound better.