Quotes About Science

We are given no escape from ultimate questions. In one way or another they are in us, whether we like it or not. Scientific truth is exact, but it is incomplete.

He called the scientific subjects 'low cunning', and would sniff and say, 'This room smells of mathematics! Go out and fetch a disinfectant spray!

Hilbert had written of Galileo that in his recantation 'he was not an idiot. Only an idiot could believe that scientific truth needs martyrdom – that may be necessary in religion, but scientific results prove themselves in time.' But this was not a trial of scientific truth.

Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics guarantee that the entropy in the universe tends toward a maximum.

In 1897, Indiana State Legislature House Bill No. 246 attempted to decree that henceforth ? should have the value of 3. The Bill was tabled indefinitely at its second reading when a mathematics professor pointed out that their powers did not quite extend to passing laws of nature.

I do not know what joins the parts of an atom, but it seems what

Boy germs. Actually, no. That's just a joke. (Shocking fact #2: Not only are boy germs completely harmless, they have been scientifically proven—by me and my best friend, Danny—to be GOOD for you.)

advocates unfettered scientific research and debate—but then, with no evidence, simply declares discussions about evolution and global warming closed; •

Great scientists and mathematicians were sent to the guillotine, too, on the grounds that the republic "does not need scientists."52

Is DNA destiny?

If God is the author of natural law, should not God be best apprehended in those laws?

I think of us humans as a family of amnesia victims who kept making up stories about our past until we found a means to reconstruct it—the sciences.

The thing is, you can use for eight hours, and then as long as you take sixty-four hours off, you can go another eight hours without being addicted. It's like a scientific formula.

brachiosaurus weighed about 77 tons, which is about 154 thousand pounds.

maybe Derek would be able to help me with my science homework.

I am arguing that science can, in principle, help us understand what we would do and should want - and, therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may on day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind.

Our world is dangerously riven by religious doctrines that all educated people should condemn, and yet there is more to understanding the human condition than science and secular culture generally admit.

Although science may ultimately show us how to truly maximize human well-being, it may still fail to

One of the greatest obstacles I see to our fashioning a rational approach to spirituality is to have religious superstition and self-deception masquerade as science.

Within a religious framework, a belief in free will supports the notion of sin—which seems to justify not only harsh punishment in this life but eternal punishment in the next. And yet, ironically, one of the fears attending our progress in science is that a more complete understanding of ourselves will dehumanize us.

The indeterminacy specific to quantum mechanics offers no foothold: If my brain is a quantum computer, the brain of a fly is likely to be a quantum computer, too. Do flies enjoy free will?

the U.S. House of Representatives voted effectively to ban embryonic stem-cell research on February 27, 2003.

In 2005, a survey was conducted in thirty-four countries measuring the percentage of adults who accept evolution. The United States ranked thirty-third, just above Turkey. Meanwhile, high school students in the United States test below those of every European and Asian nation in their understanding of science and math. These data are unequivocal: we are building a civilization of ignorance.

The point, of course, is that science increasingly allows us to identify aspects of our minds that cause us to deviate from norms of factual and moral reasoning—norms which, when made explicit, are generally acknowledged to be valid by all parties.