|
6e6cd6c
|
Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory---let the theory go.
|
|
scientific-method
|
Agatha Christie |
|
c85ff47
|
If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.
|
|
faith
science
philosophy
scientific-method
|
Robert A. Heinlein |
|
d242bd2
|
Science, my boy, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth.
|
|
science
truth
scientific-method
facts
knowledge
|
Jules Verne |
|
3679ddb
|
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
|
|
evolution
bisphenol-a
bpa
dr-jack-cohen-podiatrist
excitotoxins
fluoride
man-made-global-warming
manmade-global-warming
minority-view
monosodium-glutamate
msg
scientific-discovery
scientific-inquiry
scientific-process
science
scientific-research
scientific-revolution
majority
scientific-theory
minority
consensus
scientific-method
global-warming
majority-view
september-11-attacks
id
macro-evolution
macroevolution
intelligent-design
darwinism
|
Michael Crichton |
|
79867a1
|
Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close.
|
|
reason
science
sense-of-wonder
scientific-method
science-vs-religion
transcendence
|
Carl Sagan |
|
553b4d0
|
"The TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a failure; we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly from a bad script writer. An experiment is never a failure solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or another."
|
|
science
hypothesis
scientific-method
results
failure
|
Robert M. Pirsig |
|
5af6e3e
|
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
|
|
theory
scientific-method
|
Richard P. Feynman |
|
8586b71
|
...if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
|
|
scientific-method
|
Richard P. Feynman |
|
422fdad
|
This, in essence, is the problem with the scientific view of reality. Science is a kind of glorified tailoring enterprise, a method for taking measurements that describe something - reality - that may not be understood at all.
|
|
science
scientific-method
|
Michael Crichton |
|
0c6eca0
|
The theory of universal gravitation is not cast-iron. No theory is, and there is always room for improvement. Isn't that so? Science is constructed out of approximations that gradually approach the truth. . . Well, that means all theories are subject to constant testing and modification, doesn't it? And if it eventually turns out that they're not quite close enough to the truth, they need to be replaced by something that's closer. Right?
|
|
scientific-paradigm
scientific-method
|
Isaac Asimov |
|
c5a1fc0
|
" is a physicist and philosopher at Williams College in Massachusetts with a lifelong interest in a time which he too thinks doesn't pass. For Park, the passage of time is not so much an illusion as a myth, "because it involves no deception of the senses.... One cannot perform any experiment to tell unambiguously whether time passes or not." This is certainly a telling argument. After all, what reality can be attached to a phenomenon that can never be demonstrated experimentally? In fact, it is not even clear how to demonstrating the flow of time experimentally. As the apparatus, laboratory, experimenter, technicians, humanity generally and the universe as a whole are apparently caught up in the same inescapable flow, how can any bit of the universe be "stopped in time" in order to register the flow going on in the rest of it? It is analogous to claiming that the whole universe is moving through space at the same speed--or, to make the analogy closer, that is moving through space. How can such a claim ever be tested?"
|
|
time
reality
scientific-method
spacetime
time-passing
|
Paul Davies |
|
636b35d
|
The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know. There's not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn't suffered from that one so much that he's not instinctively on guard. That's the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, give it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don't give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.
|
|
nature
scientific-method
|
Robert M. Pirsig |