Absolutely fascinating to realize that when Richard Feynman talks about how the name of the thing doesn't tell you anything about the thing[1][2], he may be ranting about Murray Gell-Mann.
I think it was also in general, he didn’t like how people used big words to fake knowledge, and use them as a replacement for knowledge.
> Or his questioning of space shuttle engineers: ''They kept referring to the problem by some complicated name - a 'pressure-induced vorticity oscillatory wa-wa,' or something. I said, 'Oh, you mean a whistle!' 'Yes,' they said; 'it exhibits the characteristics of a whistle.' ''
http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/97/09/21/reviews/feynman-do...
It reminds me of the scene in "Return of the King" where Gandalf and Aragorn are looking for athelas:
> And he will tell you that he did not know that the herb you desire had any virtues, but that it is called _westmansweed_ by the vulgar, and _galenas_ by the noble, and other names in other tongues more learned, and after adding a few half-forgotten rhymes that he does not understand, he will regretfully inform you that there is none in the House, and he will leave you to reflect on the history of tongues.
or, as Gandalf cried:
> 'Then in the name of the king, go and find some old man of less lore and more wisdom who keeps some in his house!'
> When Feynman died, Murray wrote a rather snarky obituary, saying of Feynman: “He surrounded himself with a cloud of myth, and he spent a great deal of time and energy generating anecdotes about himself”. I never quite understood why Murray—who could have gone to any university in the world—chose to work at Caltech for 33 years in an office two doors down from Feynman.
This is great. Although being interesting and challenging > being likeable, especially for a person like Murray seems to be. Especially professional environments.
I'm curious why Feynman decided to work at Caltech for such a long time as well, given he also could have been anywhere.
Some of these anecdotes about Murray are as good as Feynman's.
Caltech is often ranked as one of the world’s top-ten universities, according to Wikipedia. It’s really strong in research and the pure sciences, which might have been what drew Feynman and Gell-Mann. (Note also that Caltech has the highest per-capita number of associated Nobel laureates in the world.)
(Disclaimer: I’m a current Caltech undergrad and am thus biased :-)).
The causality goes the other way at that level, though. Caltech's physics program was widely ranked as world class largely because of Feynman and Gell-Mann. They could have done world class work anywhere, and brought along a train of talent with them. But they both liked Pasadena, apparently.
My favorite quote from him came from his tech talk at Google where, in response to a question about String Theory from the audience he replied, "String Theory was invented in my lab, I thought it was a stupid idea then, and I still do."
"Wolfram is careful never to actually claim credit for something he hasn't produced; however, he's good at wording the main text so that it implies he has discovered things. "
I would not be surprised if this writing was much of the same.
I don't think you're being fair here. He's just sharing lore he had to become familiar with during his graduate school years. Such stories are part of the experience.
BTW he's written a fine summary of the history of particle physics during those years, which is rare indeed, because you have to be an insider to care about such things and then have the opportunities to get them straight. He's a theoretical particle physicist talking about his profession after all, even though he's been busy with other stuff for many years. Of course he can write this.
Folks here should really read the article. I just can't tell anything about the personal anecdotes, but everything else is spot on.
I don't find that the article you linked supports the 'most gifted doing the actual production.' I found the main thrust of the article rather the opposite.
I do agree he has a reputation and that the points in the lurklurk article are valid. Clearly anyone well-read enough can pick out the inaccuracies and the presentation is sometimes way out of scope for normal scientific publishing standards.
In my opinion, to sell copies some some publishers like to fly a bit too close to the sun but that's industry standard now.
"As it turned out, I never talked to Murray about science again. The last time I saw Murray was in 2012 at a peculiar event in New York City for promising high-school students. I said hello. Murray looked blank. I said my name, and held up my name tag. “Do I know you?”, he said. I repeated my name. Still blank. I couldn’t tell if it was a problem of age—or a repeat of the story of the beta function. But, with regret, I walked away."
Its fashionable on HN to disparage Wolfram but I have grown to ignore his ego and develop appreciation of his personality, experience and work. His anecdotes about Feynman as well as Gell-Mann is worth treasuring. Someone who got to personally know these titans is a very enviable position itself and he is probably one of the last links to that great generation. This blog post is highly recommended for all Physics enthusiast and is full of many great links and diversions.
I agree. I am growing out of the dislike I cultivated for Wolfram's ego that I cultivated during my grossly extended adolescence. He is an interesting and complex man who has achieved great things and collaborated with some of the greatest scientists of the last 100 years, on more or less equal terms.
Though it should be noted that the effect originates with author Michael Crichton and has little to do with Gell-Mann himself:
>I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.
Readit News
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018dvyg
[2] I quoted the key sentence at the top of http://akkartik.name/post/teaching-taste
> Or his questioning of space shuttle engineers: ''They kept referring to the problem by some complicated name - a 'pressure-induced vorticity oscillatory wa-wa,' or something. I said, 'Oh, you mean a whistle!' 'Yes,' they said; 'it exhibits the characteristics of a whistle.' '' http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/97/09/21/reviews/feynman-do...
> And he will tell you that he did not know that the herb you desire had any virtues, but that it is called _westmansweed_ by the vulgar, and _galenas_ by the noble, and other names in other tongues more learned, and after adding a few half-forgotten rhymes that he does not understand, he will regretfully inform you that there is none in the House, and he will leave you to reflect on the history of tongues.
or, as Gandalf cried:
> 'Then in the name of the king, go and find some old man of less lore and more wisdom who keeps some in his house!'
A scholar and apparently a very careful, deliberate thinker, Tolkien was no ass. But wow I bet he was locked in a room full of them from time to time.
This is great. Although being interesting and challenging > being likeable, especially for a person like Murray seems to be. Especially professional environments.
I'm curious why Feynman decided to work at Caltech for such a long time as well, given he also could have been anywhere.
Some of these anecdotes about Murray are as good as Feynman's.
(Disclaimer: I’m a current Caltech undergrad and am thus biased :-)).
They probably had to stay together for the same reason gas stations cluster around one intersection.
https://www.lurklurk.org/wolfram/review.html
"Wolfram is careful never to actually claim credit for something he hasn't produced; however, he's good at wording the main text so that it implies he has discovered things. "
I would not be surprised if this writing was much of the same.
BTW he's written a fine summary of the history of particle physics during those years, which is rare indeed, because you have to be an insider to care about such things and then have the opportunities to get them straight. He's a theoretical particle physicist talking about his profession after all, even though he's been busy with other stuff for many years. Of course he can write this.
Folks here should really read the article. I just can't tell anything about the personal anecdotes, but everything else is spot on.
But I don't doubt he has staff writing for him. His is a brand name.
I do agree he has a reputation and that the points in the lurklurk article are valid. Clearly anyone well-read enough can pick out the inaccuracies and the presentation is sometimes way out of scope for normal scientific publishing standards.
In my opinion, to sell copies some some publishers like to fly a bit too close to the sun but that's industry standard now.
Dead Comment
That is incredibly sad.
>I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.