Talks to Watch

Richard Feynman: "What's the name of a bird?"

48K views · Sep 27, 2013 · 1:40 · 1 HN recommender · 9 mentions · discussed 2016–2026

A short clip from a 1973 NOVA episode in which Richard Feynman recalls his father teaching him that knowing the name of a bird in many languages tells you nothing about the bird.

Why Hacker News points people here: Reached for whenever a thread touches on naming versus actually understanding something.

“You can know the name of a bird in many different languages, but that tells you nothing about it.”HN comment, 2023

What Hacker News said 9

RecommendsQuaiAug 2020

“If you dont mind listening to Richard himself, you can watch this pre-historic 4:3 videos on youtube;”

Feynman speaking himself in vintage footage

Full comment

If you dont mind listening to Richard himself, you can watch this pre-historic 4:3 videos on youtube; this video link

Cites ityatiMar 2016

“And here's Feynman on the same topic”

Feynman on knowing names versus understanding

Full comment

Totally agreed. However, I've found that learning something new without regards for the actual name for it helps me build a solid, abstract representation in the mind. But like you say, communicating these ideas becomes cumbersome when you don't speak the common language :) And here's Feynman on the same topic: this video

in “Randall Munroe, XKCD Creator, Goes Back to High School” · view on HN
Cites itbraveoFeb 2017

“We should go tell Feynman he's nuts...”

Full comment

ooooh, I guess God was ok with killing people as long as it was mass killings so you could call it something besides murder. Because apparently the exact name somehow makes the act better (or worse?) in God's eyes. this video We should go tell Feynman he's nuts...

in “Man jailed 16 months, and counting, for refusing to decrypt hard drives” · view on HN
Cites itanotheryouFeb 2017

“Relevant Feynman”

Full comment

Why do they ask about capitals? Relevant Feynman: this video And nowadays we have google for some added prosthetic knowledge. It's becoming increasingly important to grasp concepts well enough to ask the right questions, but knowing simple unrelated facts by heart becomes irrelevant. At most you have to remember that there was something to remember so you can look it up. edit: can a native speaker guide me on where to set commas correctly :) ?

in “27 Jobs with Unbelievably Tough Interview Questions” · view on HN
Cites itcypharOct 2017

“knowing the name of an animal is the least useful knowledge about that animal.”

Knowing an animal's name is least useful knowledge about it

Full comment

Richard Feynman had a very good quote on this topic. Effectively, knowing the name of an animal is the least useful knowledge about that animal. this video

in “Badger or Bulbasaur – have children lost touch with nature?” · view on HN
Cites itincrudibleSep 2021

“On a related note”

Full comment

I suspect the joy for people versed in classic theory is sparked from being able to identify the name of a recurring concept in a segment of a classical music piece. On a related note: this video

in “Music Theory for the 21st-Century Classroom” · view on HN
Cites itscythmic_wavesNov 2021

“So I had learned already that names don't constitute knowledge...”

Feynman admits names are useful for communicating with others

Full comment

Though he does admit [1] > So I had learned already that names don't constitute knowledge... That's caused me a certain trouble since because I refuse to learn the name of anything... What [my father] forgot to tell me was that the knowing the names of things is useful if you wanna talk to somebody else. I think an interview might count :) [1] this video

in “They don't even know the fundamentals” · view on HN
Cites itgnramiresDec 2023

“You can know the name of a bird in many different languages, but that tells you nothing about it.”

Names tell nothing about the bird; look at what it does

Full comment

It's not that simple. LLMs are great for predicting next word, but this needs a more unsupervised approach. Ultimately, you need to know the environment of whales. Sure, you know the next probable token, and even relationships between tokens, but how do they relate to what whales are doing? , in other words what does it mean? . It reminds me of the great quote by Feynman: "look at the bird"[1]. You can know the name of a bird in many different languages, but that tells you nothing about it. If you want to understand birds, you need to look at it and see what it's doing. If we want to communicate with another species, we need to understand what they're doing, why they're communicating, and from there we can begin to infer what they're communicating. It could be simply a callsign/identification/name for each individual, it could be communicating you've found a place with food, it could be communicating about predators, who knows. There could be all sorts of interesting variation and nuance to their calls. But ultimately it's necessary to look (in the general sense of having information about what it's doing -- could be through all kinds of sensors!) at the ~~bird~~ whale :) [1] Feynman tells the as a lesson from his father. (that you can know their names and still know nothing about the birds themselves). this video Bonus related video!: link

in “Vowels and Diphthongs in Sperm Whales” · view on HN
Cites its_devJan 2026

“Knowing the name of something gives you no knowledge of that thing even if you can name it in every language”

Names give no knowledge but help communication

Full comment

Richard Feynman: this video The names of birds. tl;dw: Knowing the name of something gives you no knowledge of that thing even if you can name it in every language but it's super useful to know when communicating with others.

in “The National Herbarium of Ireland digital collection of Irish plants” · view on HN