The man of science is a poor philosopher.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Why is it the philosopher who is expected to be easier and not some scientist who is even more inaccessible?
In praising science, it does not follow that we must adopt the very poor philosophies which scientific men have constructed. In philosophy they have much more to learn than to teach.
A humble scientist is a good scientist.
If I may take the liberty to speak for science at least, today his name and his prizes are without a peer in the world. He not only elevates science but he influences it as well.
Science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man's upper chamber, if he has common sense on the ground-floor. But if a man hasn't got plenty of good common sense, the more science he has, the worse for his patient.
The man of science, like the man of letters, is too apt to view mankind only in the abstract, selecting in his consideration only a single side of our complex and many-sided being.
Only as an individual can man become a philosopher.
Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
The real scientist is ready to bear privation and, if need be, starvation rather than let anyone dictate to him which direction his work must take.
The man of science is nothing if not a poet gone wrong.