I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still 'un-analysed' and crying aloud for treatment. (Popper in Conjectures and Refutations)
behind these achievements [of science] . . . are long hours, days, months of tedious laboratory labor. The single greatest obstacle to successful science is the difficulty of persuading brilliant minds to give up the intellectual pleasures of continual speculation and debate, theorizing and arguing, and to turn instead to a life consisting almost entirely of the production of experimental data. (Strevens in The Knowledge Machine)
*Note I am not arguing in defence of the traditional Western canon. It is absurd to claim that the ideas of Plato or Aristotle or other figures from the Western canon are worth studying just because they are the ideas of Plato or Aristotle, or because they are 'ours'. That would be cultural fetishism rather than philosophy. Students deserve to study good ideas no matter their origin story and also to be trained in how to think properly about which ideas deserve our interest and commitment.