SCIENTIFIC REASONING

The pleasure of

FINDING
THINGS
OUT

PETER LOXLEY DISCUSSES HOW

WE CAN LEARN ABOUT
REASONING FROM
DISTINGUISHED ROLE MODELS
SUCH AS

RICHARD FEYNMAN

he pleasure of finding
things out is a collection
of short works by the
Nobel Prize winning
scientist Richard Feynman (Figure
1). The book provides insights
into his infectious enthusiasm for
science and his love of sharing
ideas about the subject with
anyone who wanted to listen. This
article explores what primary
science teachers can learn from
such a distinguished role model.
Feynman has been widely
acknowledged as one of the
greatest physicists of the twentieth
century. Born near New York in
1918, he grew up in a family with
a keen interest in science.
Although his father was a
businessman, he was fascinated
by science and loved talking to his

PRIMARY SCIENCE REVIEW 89 Sept/Oct 2005

son about how the natural world

works. Often, Feynman would
walk with his father in a local
wood and they would talk about
all the things around them. His
father did not attempt to teach
him the names of the animals and
plants, but instead they discussed
reasons for their behaviour. For
example, on one occasion his
father pointed to birds pecking at
their feathers and asked his son
why he thought they were doing
it. Feynman suggested the birds
feathers must have got ruffled and
they were rearranging them. OK,
when would the feathers get ruffled?
replied his father. When he flies
responded Feynman.
So, they looked at
birds they saw
landing, to check
whether they pecked
their feathers more
than other birds.
They did not, so they
concluded that Feynmans answer was
probably wrong.
When Feynman ran
out of ideas, his
father revealed the

Figure 1
Richard Feynman

answer. On their regular walks his

father would tantalise him with
different questions and wonderful
visions of how nature works. The
pleasure Feynman got from
unveiling natures secrets on his
walks with his father remained
with him for the rest of his life,
and was his stated reason for
becoming a scientist.
In his later life, Feynman
became renowned not only for his
pioneering work in nuclear
physics, but also for his extraordinary ability to communicate
science to audiences of all levels
of knowledge. His enthusiasm for
science and his ability to inspire

SCIENTIFIC REASONING

audiences stemmed from those

early childhood experiences with
his father, when he came to realise
that the world looks very different
when viewed through scientific
eyes. For Feynman, science
provided inspiring and exciting
visions of the world. He was an
entertainer and storyteller who
passed on his passion for science
through his engaging sense of
humour and the palpable
pleasure he got from talking about
the subject.
In a lecture to the American
National Science Teachers
Association, Feynman spoke
about the way science was taught
in schools. He was very clear that
although children need to be
taught certain scientific words and
definitions, the learning of these

Figure 2
Falling
man with
umbrella

words and definitions does not

mean that they are learning
science. To illustrate the point, he
described a picture of a wind-up
toy dog he had seen in a science
textbook with the question What
makes it move? written underneath. The answer the author
of the book was looking for was
energy makes it move. Feynman
berated this answer as nonscientific and meaningless for
young people who are just starting
to learn about the concept of
energy. He suggested that it would
be equally meaningful to them to
say that God makes the toy move
or spirits make it move. He then
asked what the teacher would do
if the children say they do not
think energy makes it move; how
would the teacher persuade them
that the energy explanation is
valid?

Reasoning versus mystic

formula
The point Feynman wanted to
make to those teachers was that
energy makes things move is only a
definition, and only makes sense
to children after they understand
the concept of energy. He
suggested that the children would
learn more useful knowledge
about how the toy dog works by
pulling it apart to see how the
spring is wound up and how it
releases to make the wheels go
around. Then perhaps later on in
their science education they
would learn how the Sun enables
plants to grow and how eating the
plants enables people to wind up
the toy and make it move. So, for
Feynman, the answer to the
question was sunshine makes the
dog move.
Then, if
children
say that
t h e y
do not
believe it,
teachers and
children have a lot of
interesting things to talk
about.
In his lecture to the teachers,
Feynman went on to condemn
the popular use of what he called
mystic formula in science
textbooks to answer questions. He
criticised the practice of using
definitions such as gravity makes
it fall and soles of shoes wear out
because of friction as explanatory
models. In his own words: Shoe
leather wears out because it rubs
against the sidewalk and the little
notches and bumps on the sidewalk
grab pieces and pull them off. To
simply say it is because of friction is
sad, because its not science
(Feynman, 1999: 180).
Although Feynman gave this
lecture in 1966, many of his
criticisms apply equally to science
teaching today. How often do we
use definitions such as gravity
makes it fall or shoes wear out
because of friction as scientific
explanations? How would we
answer a child who said that they
did not think that gravity made

something fall? Now theres a

challenge!
According to Feynman, there is
one sure way of finding out
whether children have a meaningful understanding of a scientific word, or just the definition.
We need to ask the children to
explain how something works
without using the new scientific
word. For example, ask them to
explain how energy makes the toy
dog move without using the word
energy.

Explaining your reasoning

Influenced by Feynman, I carried
out a small-scale experiment with
some of our primary trainee
teachers to see what they knew
about air resistance. I gave them
the picture of the man falling with
the umbrella (Figure 2) and asked
them to explain how the umbrella
could slow his fall.
The automatic response was air
resistance would slow him down. Was
this a mystic formula or did they
really understand how the
umbrella crashes through the air?
To find out, I then asked the
trainees to explain how the
umbrella works without using the
term air resistance. Not sur-

the pleasure of learning

science comes from the
wonder and awe of
finding out that the
world is not as we first
perceive it to be

prisingly, their answers were

mixed, but in the end they were
able to describe how the umbrella
would be slowed down because it
had to push the air out of the way.
Some thought the best way to
explain was to demonstrate the
effect by running with an open
umbrella.
To further challenge their
understanding, I showed the
trainees the picture of the boy

PRIMARY SCIENCE REVIEW 89 Sept/Oct 2005 9

SCIENTIFIC REASONING

Figure 3 Boy
with balloon

with the
b a l l o o n
(Figure 3) and
asked them
whether air
resistance
w a s keeping the
balloon up. Some
thought it did and
some were not so
sure. I asked the
ones who thought
air resistance was
holding it up to
persuade the others that they were
right. This they found very
difficult, because of course they
were wrong. Air resistance does
not cause a balloon to float in midair. If they had thought about how
air resistance works they could
have figured out that it was
impossible for it to cause
something to float. As it was, they
hypothesised quite correctly that
air must be pushing up on the
balloon to hold it up, but could

through rational and

persuasive dialogue
with their teacher, they
can share the amazing
visions of the world
that science has
discovered

not explain how the air was doing

the pushing without citing the
mystic, and in this case
misleading, formula air resistance
holds it up.
I next asked the trainees who
thought it was not air resistance

10

PRIMARY SCIENCE REVIEW 89 Sept/Oct 2005

to persuade the others

that they were right.
Their intuitive response
was to provide an
alternative explanation,
rather than try to
discredit the air resistance idea. With
encouragement, the trainees
explained that air resistance is
only created when a moving
object collides with the materials
that make up the air. In other
words, as the umbrella falls it
collides with the air particles and
as a result is slowed down. Since
the balloon is not moving it
cannot be colliding with the air
in this way and therefore air
resistance cannot be the explanation. This is an example of
developing a persuasive argument by deduction. The trainees
started with their understanding
of how air resistance works and
logically reasoned why it could
not be responsible for causing the
balloon to float in the air. Having
established air resistance was not
supporting the balloon, the
trainees were keen to find out the
real answer. Feynman would have
been proud of us.

Things are not what they

seem
The message Feynman was trying
to get over to the teachers was
that the pleasure of learning
science comes from the wonder
and awe of finding out that the
world is not as we first perceive
it to be. Children cannot discover
natures secrets for themselves;
they need to unveil them with the
help of an inspiring teacher. If we
follow Feynmans example when
teaching science, we will start by
setting up situations that ignite
childrens desire to find out
about some aspect of nature
whose behaviour they can
observe. Then, through rational
and persuasive dialogue with
their teacher, they can share the
amazing visions of the world that
science has discovered. Of course,
finding out answers to questions
is already an important part of
primary science. However, often

answers are sought through the

procedural processes set out in
the National Curriculum and not
through the kind of persuasive
dialogue that developed between
Feynman and his father. In order
to share with children sciences
evocative visions of nature,
teachers need to become accomplished storytellers with a
passion for talking about how the
natural world works. We need to
remember that children find little
pleasure in learning definitions;
and, as Feynman points out,
learning a mystic formula is not
learning science.
Feynman died in 1988, but I
cannot help wondering what he
would have to say about the way
we teach science in our primary
schools today. According to his
colleague Freeman Dyson,
Feynmans starting point for
developing scientific ideas was his
own imagination (Feynman,
1999). Typically, he would spend
many hours drawing diagrams
and pictures that helped him
visualise and talk about the
phenomenon he was trying to
explain. Drawing and talking
were Feynmans ways of making
initial sense of the ideas forming
in his mind. I am sure he would
encourage our children to do the
same when trying to make sense
of scientific ideas. In fact, if
Feynman had his way I imagine
we would spend a lot more time
planning tantalising sequences of
dialogue, designed to help
children discover the pleasure of
finding things out.

Reference
Feynman, Richard P. (1999) The
pleasure of finding things out.
London: Penguin.

Peter Loxley is senior lecturer

in science education at
University College
Northampton. E-mail:
peter.loxley@northampton.ac.uk