If anything, that piece (and the many others like it) could be seen as an argument that we SHOULD separate the science from the scientist, by using and teaching Feynman's methods without glorifying the man himself.https://twitter.com/gravity_levity/status/1083030404330860545 …
-
Show this thread
-
Physics isn't like literature in that you can't just substitute an equivalent work by a less problematic scientist-- Feynman's work is unique and indispensable in a way that, say, an asshole novelist's is not. But Feynman's life story doesn't need to be a part of that.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
You can't teach physics without Feynman's contributions to the subject (or Schrodinger's, to pick someone who was arguably even more problematic), but you could teach it without Feynman the person.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
(That said, I think there are some advantages to including historical anecdotes when teaching physics, because they make some topics stick a little better, but it's not essential, just a nice bonus.)
2 replies 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @orzelc
I think there's a larger discussion to be had, among scientists, about the ways in which biography is either mobilized or whitewashed away. It's not just about "a nice bonus," it's about inculcating a set of ideals in students.
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes
If I might recommend one reading on this for physicists, it is Sharon Traweek, "Pilgrim's Progress: Male Tales Told During a Life of Physics," (1999): http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Traweek-Male-Tales.pdf … It also mentions, briefly, why Feynman and his bongo pics are so frequently invoked in physics textbooks.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.