A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts.
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought.
There cannot be a language more universal and more simple, more free from errors and obscurities…more worthy to express the invariable relations of all natural things [than mathematics]. [It interprets] all phenomena by the same language, as if to attest the unity and simplicity of the plan of the universe, and to make still more evident that unchangeable order which presides over all natural causes.
I have tried to read philosophers of all ages and have found many illuminating ideas but no steady progress toward deeper knowledge and understanding. Science, however, gives me the feeling of steady progress: I am convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy. It has revolutionized fundamental concepts, e.g., about space and time (relativity), about causality (quantum theory), and about substance and matter (atomistics), and it has taught us new methods of thinking (complementarity) which are applicable far beyond physics.
Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.
Q:I was going metaphorical at it, you didn't need to check the facts. My point is that phi-of-sci provides a meta-reflective level from which one can sensibly reason about science--as you yourself did by bringing up Kuhn. And, that kind of reasoning can be fed back to the world of science--as in Popper's criticism of Freud's paradigm. Not to mention Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, and other great scientists' heavy engagement with phi-of-sci. It is not as irrelevant as you made it sound.
I agree ludimagister, and I was not pretending to make Philosophy of Science as an irrelevant issue, it is not! Just I point at they are different disciplines, mutually interacting, but that they are indeed different. I think also that is the sense of the Feynman’s argument, or at least that’s my interpretation.