Quotes About Science

I wanted the feel in these books to be like an epic fantasy, with kings, queens, dukes and court politics, but of course like what I was explaining before, about making the science make sense, you have to make the politics make sense, too.

Hubble isn't just a satellite; it's about humanity's quest for knowledge.

Science attempts to analyze how things and people and animals behave; it has no concern whether this behavior is good or bad, is purposeful or not. But religion is precisely the quest for such answers: whether an act is right or wrong, good or bad, and why.

I've always been on a quest to use science in an artful way.

The quest for a quantum gravity is one of the greatest unsolved problems in all of science.

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.

There is no question that climate change is happening; the only arguable point is what part humans are playing in it.

I always assumed scientists were free to ask any question, pursue any line of inquiry without fear or reprisal.

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.

If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change, then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.

What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.

How is AIDS research to progress when the premise of science is questioning but the premise of questioning HIV is considered so dangerous that even venturing into the facts is too great a risk?

Science merely amplifies the capabilities of human beings. Science gives us the ability to do ill and to do good more than we had, and to question science in this respect is like questioning whether people ought to have two hands or just one, because with two hands they could do more evil than they can with just one.

With the discovery of the Higgs boson, one of the questions has been ticked off the list, but there are many others. We hope that we can find answers or hints for answers to at least some of them. But of course, this is in the hands of nature.

Science is full of questions and often those questions do not have answers. Expertise on the other hand, is a conclusion, it's full of hubris incapable of acknowledging its own mistakes.

It's not going to fill in the potholes. It's not going to put a roof over people's heads. What it does is it helps to address really fundamental questions of who we are, where we came from, by which I mean we can learn how life came about.

I object to a legal approach when settling questions of science or scientific behavior.

What intrigues basic scientists like me is that anytime we do a series of experiments, there are going to be three or four new questions that come up when you think you've answered one.

I've always wanted to answer all the questions that nature posed for us.

There are big questions science doesn't answer, such as why is there something rather than nothing? There can't be a scientific answer to that because it's the answer that precedes science.

Astronomers ought to be able to ask fundamental questions without accelerators.

There is no greater impediment to progress in the sciences than the desire to see it take place too quickly.

Science fiction is not quirky anymore; we live in a futuristic world now.

I've never thought I wanted to quit in my research. I would always fail in experiments, which I did at least three times a day.