[ QUOTE ]
He also said
this:
I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he’s kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure, also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic -- all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.
It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to bring a religious bent on this (being an atheist and all), but to give a short response to him, you could say
"You think God is in the details. I see God in the details AND the process. Which of us is more blinkered?"
Oh, and Feynman was indeed a truly great man.