Biocurious is a weblog about biology through the eyes of physicists. More...
Academics
Andre's Research
Biocuriosities
Books
Graduate School
History of Science
Hot off the Press
Igor's Research
Interdisciplinarity
Molecule of the Month
Open Access
Philip's Research
Philosophy of Science
Physics
Physicsworld.com
Backreaction
Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics
Cocktail Party Physics
Cosmic Variance
The Daily Transcript
Easternblot
Everyday Scientist
The Evilutionary Biologist
Evolgen
Freelancing Science
The Futile Cycle
Good Math, Bad Math
iMechanica
in singulo
Incoherently Scattered Ponderings
Juniorprof
Life of a Lab Rat
The Loom
Malletrivia
Metadatta
Mixed States
Not Even Wrong
Notes from the biomass
Notional Slurry
OpenScience Project
Pharyngula
PLoS Blog
Ponderings of a fool
Recombinants
The Sandwalk
SciAm Observations
ScienceBlogs
Shtetl-Optimized
Three-toed Sloth
Uncertain Principles
What's New by Bob Park



I can’t recall offhand, but it was probably in Genius where Gleick, or maybe some famous figure in the history of science, joked about the way Richard Feynman solved problems. It went something like this:
While this is obviously wouldn’t have worked for his brief stint as a biologist, for someone of Feynman’s intellect you might sometimes imagine it to be close to the truth for solving physics problems. In fact, Feynman solved problems the same way we all try to solve problems. From a wonderful essay titled Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine, W. Daniel Hillis recounts Feynman’s internship at a startup computer company:
For Richard, figuring out these problems was a kind of a game. He always started by asking very basic questions like, “What is the simplest example?” or “How can you tell if the answer is right?” He asked questions until he reduced the problem to some essential puzzle that he thought he would be able to solve. Then he would set to work, scribbling on a pad of paper and staring at the results. While he was in the middle of this kind of puzzle solving he was impossible to interrupt. “Don’t bug me. I’m busy,” he would say without even looking up. Eventually he would either decide the problem was too hard (in which case he lost interest), or he would find a solution (in which case he spent the next day or two explaining it to anyone who listened). In this way he worked on problems in database searches, geophysical modeling, protein folding, analyzing images, and reading insurance forms.
This idea of solving little puzzles as the way we do science is something André and I often talked about as undergrads, and it still rings true for me. Turning a large problem into a host of smaller ones makes research seem far more tractable and gives real, shorter-term goals to keep me motivated.
The article also makes mention of “crazy” ideas, and how Feynman was excited by them:
His reaction was unequivocal, “That is positively the dopiest idea I ever heard.” For Richard a crazy idea was an opportunity to either prove it wrong or prove it right. Either way, he was interested.
I think the combination of those two quotes forms a good philosophy for doing science. Crazy ideas are often interesting ideas (if they’re right it could be very exciting!), and after working on a problem and deciding it is too hard, you can’t be afraid to lose interest and try something else.
Homme Hellinga's Designer Enzymes Molecule of the Month: Lactate Dehydrogenase
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
> In fact, Feynman solved problems
> the same way we all try to solve
> problems.
In fact, he did not. Feynman was “no ordinary genius.” He was a magician. I refer you to Wheeler’s speech, about 2 minutes into the following snippet from the BBC special “The Best Mind in Science,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knDXAr4ltMA&feature=related
Two minutes into the video it’s actually Hans Bethe. Feynman was surely exceptionally brilliant but I don’t think that’s the point Philip is trying to make. You can hardly argue against the idea that Feynman solved large problems by breaking them up into smaller ones that were more manageable. He might have done it more creatively and quickly than anyone else, but let’s drop some of the hyperbole.
Idolizing scientists can be fun but it’s a terrible approach to discussing the history or practice of science. It diminishes the hard work of the people that are idolized and more importantly diminishes the work of those that laid the foundations for their success and the contemporaries that were invariably on the verge of making similar contributions. Let’s not forget that Feynman shared his Nobel prize with Schwinger and Tomonaga (even if Feynman’s approach has had wider ranging or more enduring consequences—I’ve heard this but I’m not qualified to comment). We don’t need hyperbole to respect people that made amazing contributions to science. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone struggles with hard problems.
I almost didn’t study physics because I thought it was pointless to try since I could see I wasn’t a “magician.” In the end I looked around at the other people that were somehow managing to do it and I thought I’d give it a try. I’m very glad that I did.
Cool …