107330172633320744

Richard Feynman was a very clever guy. Apart from his work in physics (specifically quantum electrodynamics which got him a nobel prize in 1956), he was also an accomplished safe cracker, samba drummer and all-round liver of life as described in the wonderful biography “Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman“.

In april 1963 he gave a set of lectures on the role of science in the world, adressing questions like “what is science”, “what is the value of science” and “can a scientist believe in god”. These lectures have been collected in the book “The meaning of it all“, from which stems the following quote:

“Looking back at the worst times, it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted the rest of the world agree with them… I want to maintain here, that it is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has som many times before in various periods in the history of man.”

The underlying theme of much of the lecture is that science is not about knowing, it’s about not knowing, about doubting and about asking questions. This is an excellent foundation for inquiry into anything, and thus also an excellent basis for dialogue.

In my opinion, dialogue can only arise when the participants are willing to entertain the notion that they semselves may be wrong. The interesting thing is, that this position is contagious. If you’re willing to admit to your doubts, to admit that you may be wrong, you make it easier for other participats in the dialogue to do so themselves. Of course, as we have all experienced at some point, the reverse position is also contagious. Entering into a coversation knowing that you’re in the right, and just need to convince others about your position, will probably only lock them into the same position and make true dialogue difficult.

The main tool for expressing your doubt and willingness to reconsider your own position is of course to ask questions preferably very open-ended questions. This kind of question also marks the main difference between dialogue and discussion. Dialogue is filled with questions (many of which may go unanswered), where as discussions are filled with answers (many of them to questions that were never asked). You might say that questions open, where answers close.

Give me a good question over a good answer any day!