I agree with the sibling comment[0] on the interpretation of Feynman&#x27;s quote.  Also, rejecting the usefulness of philosophy of science doesn&#x27;t imply accepting the view that <i>the scientific method can and will describe the purposes and meaning behind every phenomena both natural and man-made that have any relevance or importance to our lives as humans</i>.  I think the following is a good summary of Feynman&#x27;s lack of commitment to any philosophical viewpoint[1]:<p><i>I&#x27;m just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover.</i><p><i>If it turns out it&#x27;s like an onion with millions of layers and we&#x27;re just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that&#x27;s the way it is, but whatever way it comes out its nature is there and she&#x27;s going to come out the way she is, and therefore when we go to investigate it we shouldn&#x27;t predecide what it is we&#x27;re trying to do except to try to find out more about it. If you say your problem is, why do you find out more about it, if you thought you were trying to find out more about it because you&#x27;re going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question, you may be wrong. It may be that you can&#x27;t get an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of nature, but I don&#x27;t look at it [like that]. My interest in science is to simply find out about the world, and the more I find out the better it is, like, to find out.</i><p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10176173" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10176173</a>
[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.worldcat.org&#x2F;wcpa&#x2F;servlet&#x2F;DCARead?standardNo=0738201081&amp;standardNoType=1&amp;excerpt=true" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.worldcat.org&#x2F;wcpa&#x2F;servlet&#x2F;DCARead?standardNo=0738...</a>