There is a continuum between science and philosophy. As Fichte said (but did not practice), philosophy should be the science of sciences.

A distinguished cognitive neuroscientist confessed to me that, because of his religious upbringing, he could not get rid of psychoneural dualism. The idea that one ceases to be after death was too painful to him.

My Third-World roots remind me that the vast majority of our fellow human beings live hungry, sick, and uneducated, and that most social scientists, even in that world, ignore that ugly reality. This is why my papers in mathematical sociology deal not with free choice among 30 flavors of ice-cream, but with social structure, social cohesion, and social marginality.

Whereas science elicits changes in order to know, technology knows in order to elicit changes.

One can discern a few very general myths that facilitate the birth of further myths: that everything is possible; that whatever we have failed to explain in normal and earthly terms must have paranormal or supernatural explanations; and that science, being rational, cannot explain the irrational, such as taste and love.

In the scientific community you find competent teachers and original researchers, just as in the musical community you find many good performers but very few good composers.

I believe that modern science supports free will, in showing that the brain can act spontaneously, not only in response to external stimuli.