Who Smeared Richard Feynman? (2014)
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20200604154641/http://blog.nucle...
Really? Such tactics are all over the media nowadays. Read Manufacturing Consent then look for all of the tactics in the western "propaganda model" of operation updated for 2020. The news has never been subtle about this sort of manipulation since at least the 80's. By comparison, what I see nowadays, it seems like journalists think everyone's a mental toddler.
Look for emotional language in articles. Then count up the hard facts. There's an inverse relationship. It's not supposed to be like this!
This would actually be an interesting empirical study, if anyone is sitting on a news DB stretching back a few decades.
But his disease probably got him more publicity than his brilliant mind.
He had to resign from the latter post after getting caught in a breach of lockdown rules by the media.
His personal life has been an endless source of fascination to the right-wing tabloids (e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294315/Naked-hypoc... ).
Exactly!
For an easy demonstration, watch NHK news (Japan), then compare to any of {CNN,FOX,MSNBC,CBS,ABC,...}.
It's nice that one can be informed without being inflamed.
Seems like it would be great to train a model on the historical corpus of news articles to visualize this trend and inform readers of this kind of deliberate manipulation. It might also be interesting to have a browser plugin that could use the model to "rewrite" articles to remove the manipulation as well.
In the 80s the fairness doctrine was killed. In short words it required certain forms of opinion pieces to give an opposing viewpoint. [0]
Bringing this back would probably have a bigger impact on politics in this country than anything else we could do right now.
At all hours!
He had better luck with his other two wife's.
Given that the most clever and intelligent among us could be better prepared for subterfuge, it perhaps makes the question of "Is Feynman trustworthy?" rather difficult.
Fun fact: In Feynman's formative years, 'libertarian' still meant 'anarchist'.
I think libertarianism had been defined in opposition to non-democratic regimes; then after the fall of feudalism it continued to be used by socialism/anarchism/communism.
I think the US Libertarian Party's name serves (or served) mostly as a rebranding of anarchism, but I am not sure about the origins of that party, anybody more knowledgeable please join in. An interesting note about them is that both Ayn Rand and Frank Zappa dismissed them as closet anarchists.
I am also interested in when did the influx of the right wing into "anarchism" or "libertarianism" happen? Maybe it has something to do with Lenin&co.'s and later Stalin's suppression of anarchism, and even later the Cold war propaganda?
Also, who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'?
The economist Murray Rothbard used it first in the mid-20th century, according to the Wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism. He felt free to use the term as it borrowed some ideas from anarchism, but many would say he excluded crucial parts.
Most anarchists are very unwilling to be associated with anarcho-capitalism, and resent the prefix. They are probably even less thrilled about being associated with the libertarian party.
US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government
Anarcho-capitalism: no centralised state, society self-regulates via free markets.
Anarchism: no heirarchical power structures, thus no private capital at all.
What I was aiming at with GP post was that as far as I understand, at least in the early days of the Libertarian Party, a significant number of them were actually completely against the existence of a government. (Wikipedia mentions something about an "anarchist-minarchist debate" or something like that.)
But political reality of course leads to compromise. It is simply untenable in the US, and most of the Earth to be taken seriously by a large majority of voters while espousing getting rid of the government.
>I don't think of the problem as between socialism and capitalism but rather between suppression of ideas and free ideas. If it is that free ideas and socialism are better than communism, it will work its way through. And it will be better for everybody. And if capitalism is better than socialism, it will work its way through.
In the rest of the chapter he's pretty critical of Russia in particular, because of the soviet suppression of good science in favor of party-endorsed "facts," but that's more anti-autocratic than anti-communist.
Passionate people who get some limelight may steer on this path. Passionate and humble people don't get their dopamine from other's or they do but to a much lesser extent. They don't crave it as much as the former.
All things said, I don't think Feynman should be judged on his moral values, he never claimed he was a priest or a monk, he loved life and gratification. He was inspiring to others and that is what matters.
I found Richard Feynman very inspiring and I still do.
As I mentioned in another comment, I suspect Feynman had some narcissistic traits, but that does not make me less inspired by his lectures and I don’t see the point of pointing these out in relation to his work directly. The output of his work had a positive influence and that should be held into account.
Another example. I love some of Arthur Clarke’s works and ideas. He was also a pedo guy and he lived and done his dirty deeds in Sri Lanka. Disgusting? yeah, absolutely. Should that make me like his works and ideas less? That is bound to confuse my brains:) so I conveniently compartimentalize his work from other things. And I agree that this personal fact could be mentioned along with his name but his work is a separate thing though
I think with such an accusation you are bound to tell more about what you know. For what its worth I found this: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bjxp5m/we-asked-people-wh...
> I grew up in Sri Lanka.
> Our parents mostly let us do what we wanted, but we were told to stay away—never go near—a large property that bordered my house. When we asked why the reasons were always vague.
> There were some rumors that someone very famous or maybe powerful lived there. We all got the sense that he was ...a danger in some way.
> My grandfather was star struck by the man. Grandpa could barely speak. The two began chatting. The man flattered my grandfather's painting. He said he also liked to paint but only people. The man looked towards me and said let's paint the boy.
> I was placed on a stool in front of the two men. I was eleven years old. Very quickly the neighbour said the clothes were spoiling the beauty of me. He asked me to remove my clothes. I looked at my grandpa and did as I was told. Soon after I was on the stool, naked, and crying. I don't know how long this went on but at some point my father arrived home. He quickly reviewed the scene, saw the man from the property, and...went ..nuts. He just lost it on them: raising his voice. Getting in people's faces. I honestly thought he might kill them both.
> Within a couple of hours my grandfather was gone and they never - ever - spoke again. Although in some circles it was common knowledge, the man from the property was a famous British science fiction novelist. Apparently he had been banished to (then) Ceylon from postwar Britain rather than face prison for being a pederast. I think about that day sometimes. My father didn't have a temper and rarely ever even raised his voice but the man he became in that moment while essentially unrecognizable. While we've had our ups and downs from that moment forward I never questioned his love for me again. Ever. I knew he'd kill for me. I learned how important it is to protect your family and those more vulnerable than you.
My intention was to relate just the relevant parts, but I think I ended up copying more than half of the story.
I don't like that the story does not mention Clarke, considering that Clarke (or rather his public image/legacy) is under attack from it. Dunno if there are legal implications with naming, though.
But also, he was actually supportive/accepting to female scientists when that was not a norm - up to supporting female scientist when under sexist attack.
That part matter too and part of his legacy too.