Why is it the philosopher who is expected to be easier and not some scientist who is even more inaccessible?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.
Only as an individual can man become a philosopher.
Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.
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 great scientist is more open to a new idea than almost anybody.
One can only become a philosopher, but not be one. As one believes he is a philosopher, he stops being one.
The scientists do not get enough help, enough encouragement, to change their field from time to time because the pressure is too high or is to perform something. And once you start in a new field, you are a nobody to start with, you see.
The man of science is a poor philosopher.