“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”?

The question about why there is "it" remains. You claim that removing "it" will result an entire different meaning, about which I need to know.

Quote:

The question about why there is "it" remains. You claim that removing "it" will result an entire different meaning, about which I need to know.

I'm not sure I know how to explain it. You have to look at the ENTIRE sentence, not just a phrase or clause. I'll try:

First let's look at the whole thing WITHOUT "it"

And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that/ is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race['s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.

Take a small fragment like "discovery is worthwhile" That is true and it could even be it's own complete sentence. But it isn't, it has to fit with everything else, too.

Let me turn it back to you now. Look at it all and then you tell me how it is "crystal clear," OK?

So now you have science being the RESULT of the (a? some?) worthwhile discovery?

I just don't think that's where he's trying to lead at all. He makes it clear, I think, that "science" is not some accumulated body of information in the way he's trying to analyze it. In part because such knowledge is fallible, and prone to error.

He's not looking for a book of rules to follow, or an encyclopedia of accumulated information, which he will then call "science." He's shooting for a verb form of the word, not a noun, unless the noun is something like "doubt." What "science" is, the way he's been trying to define it is "believing in the ignorance of experts." It's a state of mind, combining curiosity, a desire to understand, and self-reliance.

I think if you want to remove the word "it," you'd still need some grammatical adjustments, but that's not a topic of interest to me. I'm just interested in understanding what Feynman is trying to say, not the way he says it.

This was a speech, not a prepared paper, and such a setting often results in some imperfections in expression. I think he could have expressed this sentence, and others, better, but that's a different issue.