R. P. Feynman on the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

What Hacker News said

Recommends ckuehne · 2010-07 · on “Where does a tree get its mass?”

Can't upvote you enough for this. By the way, Feynman also knows the difference "between knowing the name of something and knowing something": [this video]

Recommends ars · 2012-12 · on “Half the Facts You Know Are Probably Wrong”

> Is this something I should try to avoid with my son, or should I encourage it Avoid. I would avoid spending time learning the names of things. Learn the thing itself, but the name tells you very little. Watch this: [this video]

Cites bane · 2011-01 · on “Chinese Mothers”

(sorry if this is going to be rather reactionary and offensive) All day I've been getting emails and IM's from my East Asian friends about this article. As somebody who grew up in and around kids with parents like this I have to call hooey on it. All of my East Asian friends were miserable, tired, sad kids. A couple committed suicide, most had health problems, alcoholism, severe depression, drug additions, and the rest are today broken people on the inside who can't get through a simple phone call with their parents without breaking into sobbing tears after hanging up. All of them have spoken outwardly and quite vocally a wish for a Western upbringing, one that fostered creativity and the ge

Cites thebigshane · 2012-04 · on “Cargo Cults and Interview Questions”

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. - Richard Feynman [LINK] and [this video]

Cites clusterfoo · 2014-07 · on “The Last Days of the Polymath (2009)”

Reminds me of this bit by Feynman on the difference between knowing something, and knowing the name of that thing: [this video] There does seem to exist a particular breed of "intellectual" who not only confuses the two, but seemingly believes that conceptual understanding is merely an unpleasant side effect one must endure in order to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to grow one's vocabulary (and grow it beyond recognition, and, more importantly, beyond scrutiny from mere-mortals). Jargon creep is inevitable when we go expert-crazy, which, it seems to me, is more about marking territory and protecting one's clique than any legitimate concern for the advancement of knowledge. > "It's simply no

Cites bane · 2014-08 · on “Questions about Nasa's space drive answered”

My point is that people often confuse understanding the model with understanding the thing. The model becomes a ritual, it becomes a kind of complex dogma, and when people master the model they claim they understand it. But it's not true, they don't understand the thing, they only understand our description of it. Feynman also addresses this, [this video] The next Monday, when the fathers were all back at work, we kids were playing in a field. One kid says to me, “See that bird? What kind of bird is that?” I said, “I haven’t the slightest idea what kind of a bird it is.” He says, “It’s a brown-throated thrush. Your father doesn’t teach you anything!” But it was the opposite. He had already taught