Women tend to be more intuitive, or to admit to being intuitive, and maybe the hard science approach isn’t so attractive. The way that science is taught is very cold. I would never have become a scientist if I had been taught like that.

Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of them without any practical purpose whatsoever in view.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I first read science fiction in the old British Chum annual when I was about 12 years old.

Science fiction is a field of writing where, month after month, every printed word implies to hundreds of thousands of people: ‘There is change. Look, today’s fantastic story is tomorrow’s fact.

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false

It is supposed that there has been progress in the science of textual criticism, and the most frivolous pretender has learned to talk superciliously about “the old unscientific days”. The old unscientific days are everlasting; they are here and now; they are renewed perennially by the ear which takes formulas in, and the tongue which gives them out again, and the mind which meanwhile is empty of reflexion and stuffed with self-complacency.

The more complex the world situation becomes, the more scientific and rational analysis you have to have, the less you can do with simple good will and sentiment.

When they want to do a thing, in business of course, they must wait till there arises in their brains, somehow, a religious, or ethical, or scientific, or philosophic, concept that the thing is right. And then they go ahead and do it, unwitting that one of the weaknesses of the human mind is that the wish is parent to the thought.

Our idea of nature is increasingly being determined by scientific developments. And they have become decisive for our image of reality

Scientific reality is the modern human condition, and you can see that in the symbolic nature of my work

There is no “black mind” or “white mind”, no “white male of knowing”, there is only one truth, and we find it through the scientific method.

Science is based on evidence, not politics. In science knowing is always preferable to not knowing.”37 But today in academia, progressive ideology trumps scientific facts.

Our collective scientific knowledge of COVID-19 continues to grow

I have never been able to soothe myself with the sugary delusions of religion; for these things stand convicted of the utmost absurdity in light of modern scientific knowledge.

At the end of the eighteenth century, science was one of the few areas in old Europe where illegitimacy could not overshadow accomplishment

It is right that we be concerned with the scientific probity of metaphysics.

Active love is a harsh and fearful thing compared with the love in dreams. Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one’s life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and eveyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and persistence, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.

I don’t have a method. All I do is read a lot, think a lot, and rewrite constantly. It’s not a scientific thing.

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.

I used to think there was a scientific way to do things. Like a proper way to answer a question or that kind of stuff. It’s like, there’s not! There’s not a method, there’s not a science to it.

I don’t recall any interest in science in particular. It came later in college.

That’s what we want to do here at Johnson Space Center. I think what we have always brought to NASA and brought to the country is trying to push the boundaries, trying to go to the next level.

Astronauts are very professional and when they’re preparing for launch, they prepare for it as the most serious endeavor of our lives.

In those days, before it became scientific, cricket was the best game in the world to watch, with its rapid sequence of amusing incidents, each ball a potential crisis!

Business, to be successful, must be based on science, for demand and supply are matters of mathematics, not guesswork.

Time travel was once considered scientific heresy, and I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled a crank.

To decide upon the answer is not scientific. In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar ajar only.

This is not yet a scientific age.

Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad – but it does not carry instructions on how to use it.

Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.

Observation, reason, and experiment make up what we call the scientific method.

The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth.

It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

Adornment, what a science! Beauty, what a weapon! Modesty, what elegance

Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss.

All problems are finally scientific problems.

Oh, I am quite certain that we will have such bases in our lifetime, somewhat like the Antarctic stations and similar scientific outposts — continually manned. Although, certainly there is the problem of the environment, the vacuum, the high and low temperatures of day and night. Still, in all, in many ways, it’s more hospitable than Antarctica might be.

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.

If we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition – even when it seems to be doing a little good – we abet a general climate in which scepticism is considered impolite, science tiresome, and rigorous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate.

The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it’s just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age.

Science is not perfect. It’s often misused; it’s only a tool, but it’s the best tool we have. Self-correcting , ever changing, applicable to everything: with this tool, we vanquish the impossible.

We’ve arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.

There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That’s perfectly all right: it’s the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a self-correcting process.

When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions, that is the heart of science.

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.

Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?

Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.

The truth is that the religious and the scientific processes, though involving different methods, are identical in their final aim. Both aim at reaching the most real.

The scientific observer of Nature is a kind of mystic seeker in the act of prayer.

There is no connection between my scientific work and the facts of private life.

When radium was discovered, no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals. The work was one of pure science. And this is proof that scientific work must not be considered from the point of view of the direct usefulness of it.

It is my earnest desire that some of you should carry on this scientific work and keep for your ambition the determination to make a permanent contribution to science.

I have frequently been questioned, especially by women, of how I could reconcile family life with a scientific career. Well, it has not been easy.

No society has ever yet been able to handle the temptations of technology to mastery, to waste, to exuberance, to exploration and exploitation. We have to learn to cherish this earth and cherish it as something that’s fragile, that’s only one, it’s all we have. We have to use our scientific knowledge to correct the dangers that have come from science and technology.

For, medicine being a compendium of the successive and contradictory mistakes of medical practitioners, when we summon the wisest of them to our aid, the chances are that we may be relying on a scientific truth the error of which will be recognized in a few years’ time.

Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? No. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.

The scientific attitude of mind involves a sweeping away of all other desires in the interest of the desire to know.

The first man who said “fire burns” was employing scientific method, at any rate if he had allowed himself to be burnt several times. This man had already passed through the two stages of observation and generalization. He had not, however, what scientific technique demands—a careful choice of significant facts on the one hand, and, on the other hand, various means of arriving at laws otherwise than my mere generalization. (1931)

Scientific method, although in its more refined forms it may seem complicated, is in essence remarkably simply. It consists in observing such facts as will enable the observer to discover general laws governing facts of the kind in question. The two stages, first of observation, and second of inference to a law, are both essential, and each is susceptible of almost indefinite refinement. (1931)

I do not believe that science per se is an adequate source of happiness, nor do I think that my own scientific outlook has contributed very greatly to my own happiness, which I attribute to defecating twice a day with unfailing regularity. Science in itself appears to me neutral, that is to say, it increases men’s power whether for good or for evil. An appreciation of the ends of life is something which must be superadded to science if it is to bring happiness, but only the kind of society to which science is apt to give rise. I am afraid you may be disappointed that I am not more of an apostle of science, but as I grow older, and no doubt—as a result of the decay of my tissues, I begin to see the good life more and more as a matter of balance and to dread all over-emphasis upon anyone ingredient.

Almost all great advances have sprung originally from disinterested motives. Scientific discoveries have been made for their own sake and not for their utilization, and a race of men without a disinterested love of knowledge would never have achieved our present scientific technique. … Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz, so far as can be discovered, never for a moment considered the possibility of any practical application of their investigations.

God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.

Scientific inquiry shouldn’t stop just because a reasonable explanation has apparently been found.

The European talks of progress because by the aid of a few scientific discoveries he has established a society which has mistaken comfort for civilisation.

I lay no claim to advancing scientific data other than advancing flying knowledge. I can only say that I do it because I want to

Great scientific contributions have been techniques.