A Quote by Richard P. Feynman

A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.' Well, they don't! — © Richard P. Feynman
A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.' Well, they don't!
What is necessary for 'the very existence of science,' and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself. We look, and we see what we find, and we cannot say ahead of time successfully what it is going to look like. ... It is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions.
The world's history is constant, like the laws of nature, and simple, like the souls of men. The same conditions continually produce the same results.
It is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions.
What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment. ... If we are told that the same experiment will always produce the same result, that is all very well, but if when we try it, it does not, then it does not. We just have to take what we see, and then formulate all the rest of our ideas in terms of our actual experience.
There's no such thing as post-feminism. It's like saying post-democracy, excuse me, what does that mean? We're nowhere near equality, so the very idea of post-feminism is ridiculous. The same people who 30-40 years ago said the women's movement is not necessary, 'it's going against nature, my wife is not interested' [are] the same people now saying 'well it used to be necessary but not anymore.' The very invention of the word post-feminism is the current form of resistance.
Personal power involves producing success through modeling what works and taking consistent action towards your goals. At the same time, you have to internalize behavioral and belief changes in order to take the necessary action to produce the results. It's been said that successful people do what others won't, and that if you believe you can or you believe you can't, you're right. Both of those statements are true.
Long ago, I realized that success leaves clues, and that people who produce outstanding results do specific things to create those results. I believed that if I precisely duplicated the actions of others, I could reproduce the same quality of results that they had.
Science is the only news. When you scan a news portal or magazine, all the human interest stuff is the same old he-said-she-said, the politics and economics the same cyclical dramas, the fashions a pathetic illusion of newness; even the technology is predictable if you know the science behind it. Human nature doesn't change much; science does, and the change accrues, altering the world irreversibly
I've always said, nothing wrong with being frustrated and upset with bad results, but you get it out of your system. You can't stick it in a bag and carry it around with you. You have to move on, same way you would if things went well. You know, don't spend the rest of the week patting everyone on the back and saying how well they've done.
Economics is not a science, in the sense that a policy can be repeatedly applied under similar conditions and will repeatedly produce similar results.
People who know there is a god and people who know there isn't live in exactly the same world. Same number of hours in the day, same weather, same football results. They both love their children and die of the same diseases.
We continue to elect the very same people, and we wonder why we get the same results.
Each living creature is said to be alive and to be the same individual - as for example someone is said to be the same person from when he is a child until he comes to be an old man. And yet, if he's called the same, that's despite the fact that he's never made up from the same things, but is always being renewed, and losing what he had before, whether it's hair, or flesh, or bones, or blood, in fact the whole body.
In my own life, I have noticed when I have been meeting directors, that the same sentence with the same inflection can be said by a man, like: "Get me this." But if the same thing is said by a woman, it's seen as harsh and unacceptable. That always fascinates me.
Computers are finite machines; when given the same input, they always produce the same output.
Style is besides the point. Nobody would pay attention if one always said the same thing, in the same words and the same tone of voice.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!