A lot of my colleagues are rationalists and materialists, meaning that they believe rationality should be the driving force behind science and humanity, and that everything in the world can be reduced to matter. One of them actually believes in "Postmodern science", which advocates rationality as the driving force, but states that any scientific theory is an interpretation of scientists that have a political, philosophical and social agenda.
My personal viewpoint, which I gathered from history, psychology and philosophy, is that there is an element of science - the creative, intuitive element - that is inextricably related to irrationality, and that by trying to reduce everything to rationality and matter you automatically cut down one of the most productive mechanisms of scientific discovery. Popper already realized this, making sure that metaphysics is not removed from science, since it might be a first inspiration to a falsifiable model, in opposition to the then prevalent logical positivist view. Regarding "Postmodern science", this is for me a rejection of qualitative differences between interpretations - every interpretation, or scientific model, is equally flawed and tainted by corrupt politics, and no single one has more value than any other. The scientific ideal - the curious, honest pursuit of understanding the world we live - is reduced to a political and sociological war between scientists. Having killed the ideal of science, we have no way to improve it (improvement only lives as long as we qualitative distinctions live), nor to inspire others to do better, nor to give science the strength and open-mindedness it needs to help humanity as a whole - it is death of science.
Carl Sagan put me on the journey to becoming a physicist; Richard Feynman taught me that to have a childish curiosity about nature is what drives science.
As far as I am concerned, I will never let their scientific ideal die; even if it means putting my current and future job in jeopardy.