Children love to ask "why?". The question often prompts an amusing response. That is, it's amusing until the child goes into an infinite loop. I have to admit, as a kid this was one of my favourite ways to frustrate the adults around me!

Richard Feynman points out one of the problems with asking "why?". In order for there to be a sufficient answer to any such question involving why, one must assume a certain set of truths. These truths are what get us out of the logical infinite loops triggered by asking why. As adults with experience in the world, the set of truths we carry around with us is both broad and deep. Children don't have the luxury of such a large set of truths which is why they more frequently ask why.

If you're familiar with Richard Feynman, the beginning of this video should be slightly puzzling. He was constantly asking why things are the way they are. His point at the beginning of the video, isn't to give the interviewer a difficult time. Rather, as we come to find out at the end of the video, he refuses to give a full explanation for much the same reason that an adult might refuse to properly explain a difficult question from a child, like "why is the sky blue?" Without a proper understanding and framework of truths on the part of the interviewer, Feynman simply can't effectively provide an answer. Rather than lie or butcher the truth as some adults might do in the example with the blue sky (how many of us were told "Because that's the way God made it?") he just refuses to answer, which is upsetting to the interviewer. Feynman alludes to the fact that if the interviewer were to study the subject and gain the knowledge required, he could provide a very thorough answer.

I see this little anecdote as representative of a much more widespread problem, particularly today. There is an expectation, bordering on entitlement, that our individual limited knowledge is sufficient to understand what are very complex systems. Broken metaphors and analogies are substituted in as shortcuts for what would otherwise be the full amount of effort and time needed to fully understand the problem at hand.

Global warming is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If Feynman were alive today, he would be the first person to question the experts on the issue. But he would also be the first person to point out that most people simply don't have the prerequisite knowledge necessary to analyze the complicated interactions going on in the system. He might lay out two options given this reality.

First, the layperson might defer to the people that have gained this prerequisite knowledge via painstaking hard work and the rigour of scientific peer review. In other words, when you are sick and visit your doctor, you trust that she has the knowledge to begin to understand what ails you. Likewise, laypeople might decide to trust the collective scientific opinion, that global warming is caused by humans.

Alternatively, and I might guess this option to be more of his preference, would be for the lay person to start asking why for him- or herself. Which leads us to a predicament. A great number of people expect that long forgotten lessons in high school or even undergraduate science and geography can suffice in analyzing the problem of global warming. In reality, these people are as well-equipped to explain why the world is warming as the children from our earlier example who bombarded adults with "why?". Actually, in a lot of cases, they're much worse off than children. Whereas a child is open-minded and willing to consider new truths and frameworks as they are explained to them, many of these adults are not. Any truth that might be inconvenient or uncomfortable is instantly dismissed.

But the truths we learn may be inconvenient, as in global warming or countless other phenomena (e.g., does anyone rave about how convenient it is to think of light as both a particle and a wave?). I think if you want to truly understand something, there are 3 fundamental requirements.

1. You need to ask why a lot. We live in a culture where asking why can often be interpreted as combative and disrespectful. I like to think that asking why is a sign of respect. It means that the thing being questioned matters enough to the person asking.
2. If you truly want the answer to the myriad of questions from the first step, you need to embrace an open mind. This means, first and foremost, admitting that you might not have the knowledge right now required to even begin to comprehend the problem. You might already have an opinion or a hypothesis in mind, but it may not be informed.
3. Finally, you need to have the perseverence to gain the knowledge required to comprehend the problem at hand. It takes hard work. There are no shortcuts nor are the truths unveiled only understandable by extraordinary people. There are just ordinary folks willing to do the work.

The point is, we all are the children from the example above at many points throughout our lives. Know when you are so you don't have to remain one. Though it might be useful to hold on to that childhood curiosity!