Now this man makes me excited about science because he's humble and he's clear about his conviction that aren't that of a angry zealot, but a calm person that knows what he's talking about. This took years of sacrifice to achieve. You know ... school and work.

Now, why can't we have anyone that deals with public policy inspire us like this man. Now I speak for myself but I have a feeling that others might agree. The power of science or politics not only stems from it's effect it has on others through it's actions but, on a deeper level, the seed it plants in our minds that we could get involved because of its ideas. That's why this country suffers. We can't always blame the few in power for their stupidity and short-sighteness. We must also blame the few for failing to inspire us but instead repulse us from ever getting involved in their bullshit.

This is great, thanks for the post. I just finished reading "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" about a month ago and loved it. I've also read a couple of his other books. He's exactly right. Dawkin's "Unweaving the rainbow" is another great account of this idea. I feel that this 'beauty in ignorance' idea is itself, simply, ignorant.

I remember watching this entire episode on BBC TV a while ago. It's really worth reading his books too "What do you care what other people think?" and "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman".

This guy had both his feet on the ground. He said something to the effect of not being afraid of the unknown and that it was easier for him to not know the answer to some questions than to just attribute the answer to whim of some supreme being. It was OK to not know the answer and all that means is that we haven't asked the right questions yet.

Feynman's artist friend is not that smart. Understanding science helps an artist to be a better artist. There are a lot of ignorant, arrogant artists out there. To paint the human body, it is best to study anatomy. To paint clouds, it is best to understand condensation and to know what a cumulonimbus cloud is. This does not subtract from understanding the beauty. It is a must for understanding the beauty.

I once read a book called The Immence Journey by a man named Loren Eisley.

Eisley was a palentologist who saw the beaty, saw the science, and the beaty of the science at the same time. Remarkable book

Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, some people don't see the beauty in the cells of a flower. Reducing a flower to the processes of its cells requires more than simply beholding a flower. It requires learning complex scientific jargon and mathematics and such that may be of little interest to the artist.

The creepiest portion of the film "pi" was when the mathematician stares of at the leaves on a tree as though he were trying to understand the tree mathematically.

The process of looking at a flower can go from beholding to bewildering sometimes.

Nothing said in interview suggested that the artist needs to study botany to appreciate the beauty of the flower. What is being pointed out, is that knowing more than meets the eye, in no way lessens the perception of beauty.

It's an argument against the all too common assumption that understanding the underlying mechanisms of the flower, of cloud formation, or the chemicals that create the colours of the sunset, will some how destroy the perception of beauty.

Ahh, so this is how the interview went. You see, Feynmann's BBC interview is transcribed in his wonderful book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. It's one thing to read his thoughts on the flower, it's quite another to hear (and see) him say it. Much thanks!