Comment by jliechti1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jliechti1 | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes it's not always possible to explain something in sufficient detail to someone who has no concept of what you are trying to explain.

Feynman explains this really well when trying to answer a question about magnets:

"Of course, it's an excellent question. But the problem, you see, when you ask why something happens, how does a person answer why something happens? For example, Aunt Minnie is in the hospital. Why? Because she went out, slipped on the ice, and broke her hip. That satisfies people. It satisfies, but it wouldn't satisfy someone who came from another planet and who knew nothing about why when you break your hip do you go to the hospital... when you explain a why, you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise, you're perpetually asking why."

"I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you. For example, if we said the magnets attract like if rubber bands, I would be cheating you. Because they're not connected by rubber bands. I'd soon be in trouble. And secondly, if you were curious enough, you'd ask me why rubber bands tend to pull back together again, and I would end up explaining that in terms of electrical forces, which are the very things that I'm trying to use the rubber bands to explain. So I have cheated very badly, you see."

The key quote being:

"I really can't do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you're more familiar with, because I don't understand it in terms of anything else you're more familiar with."

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Transcript: http://lesswrong.com/lw/99c/transcript_richard_feynman_on_wh...

I feel that here Feynman is reluctant to admit that the answer is - we don't know. While we know a lot of the properties of magnetic fields and how they're amplified in magnets, afaik we have no idea what they're "made of" yet (if they're made of anything at all) or by what means they exert force at a distance.

The fields are presently among of our base concepts. Like the atom was, until the discovery of the electron and nucleus around ~1900.

What he does capture well is that you always have some kind of a base which you accept.

I think Feynman is explaining here that the only truly meaningful way for him to answer is to teach everything relevant to the question he knows that the other person doesn't; which can easily be a lifetime or several years worth of material.

Well we might not know what electrostatic attraction is, but google "magnetism relativity" and you'll find that magnetism comes from relativistic effects of the motion of electrons. It's really nifty, and simple to understand if relativity is already a concept you're familiar with.

(That might be what you meant, but learning this a couple years ago blew my mind so I had to share.)

Yes, thats it! It turns out we (humanity) did know more, its just that I did not :) Thanks.

as much as i admire the guy, i don't think a quote from a theoretical physicist is the most relevant to the article. consider this portion from the Perlis quote in intro to SICP:

"Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands."

Feynman was so good at explaining things. It always amazes me how he used very simple language, even when explaining things to university students.

There are two answers though:

1. Drop the level of detail, and

2. Explain using analogies derived from the computer terms you are using.

For example, can you explain what a stack overflow is to someone who's basic knowledge of computers amounts to writing school papers in Microsoft Word?

I can:

"A stack is exactly what it sounds like. It is a logical way of setting up data so you can put data on the top of the stack or take it off. Let's look at books here and stack them up. At some point I will run out of space. That's a stack overflow."

If they don't have the concepts, they don't need the low-level detail. I don't need to explain frames, heap allocation, etc. You have to start with the concept. But it isn't that hard.

I am not sure I can explain magnetism to you, but I am not deeply immersed in that field.

That's completely the wrong way to explain a stack overflow to board level. Try this:

A "stack overflow" is a common programming error that can lead to a security compromise. While vendors have made their products more resilient to this problem in recent years, it remains a major risk, especially for systems connected to the Internet.

Board level is different. I was talking about history student level. Board members don't care what a stack overflow is. They want to know how it affects them. My comment was about the history student who asks "what is this? I read it in an error message."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com