&gt; He might have changed the way a few scientists and a few more philosophers think about science but most people including most practising scientists don&#x27;t think about such things at all. The general public, I suspect, isn&#x27;t even aware that there is a &#x27;way the world looked at science&#x27; much less that there is a different way of looking at it.<p>There&#x27;s a word for the state of these scientists and laypeople: ignorance.<p>Edit to add some substance to the name-calling:<p>There&#x27;s a certain perspective held by many scientists that 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. If those holding this perspective grant that valuable knowledge lies outside the ability of science to observe and explain, they tend to view it as irrelevant and frivolous. Those who hold this perspective tend to view philosophy as mere wordplay, and the idea of studying science from the perspective of philosophy (as Kuhn did) as pointless or an usurpation of their position at the top of the intellectual ladder.<p>Feynman embodied this attitude when he said, &quot;Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s a belligerent and proud ignorance that puts a black stain on the practice of science today, and an attitude that threatens some of the most valuable academic disciplines in the humanities, to the detriment of our culture.<p>My brief statement above was meant to call attention to this belligerent ignorance and poke fun at it a little bit.