Quotes About Science

Today, the tantalizing question for science is, If the human consciousness or soul does indeed continue to exist well past the traditional marker that defines death, does it really ever die as an entity? Our

To rank economic activities as more or less preferable is ideology, not science: a judgment that is driven by values and predilections, not by hard data.

Davidson had become a strong believer in the concept of neuroplasticity, the idea that people's brains will physically change over time and that those changes can depend on their life experiences.

No. I'm not from outer space or the future. And this is not magic, just science, pure engineering. Magic, religion, the occult --all of it-- they are all excuses to not believe that wonders are possible here on Earth. I don't want to be magic. I want people to understand that things they never even dreamed of are possible. I want to be believed, Louisa.

Simpler theories may be more convenient to work with, but they are not intrinsically more probable than complex ones.

The failure of Popper's demarcation criterion throws up an important question. Is it actually possible to find some common feature shared by all the things we call 'science...'? It may be that they share some fixed set of features that define what it is to be science, but it may not.... If so, a simple criterion for demarcating science from pseudo-science is unlikely to be found.

According to many philosophers, there is a purely logical reason why science will never be able to explain everything. For in order to explain something, whatever it is, we need to invoke something else. But what explains the second thing?

It must be admitted that scientists today take little interest in philosophy of science.... It is not an indication that philosophical issues are no longer relevant. Rather, it is a consequence of the increasingly specialized nature of science, and of the polarization between the sciences and humanities that characterizes the modern education system.

So part of the job of philosophy of science is to question assumptions that scientists take for granted.

It has been argued that close attention to the history of science is indispensable for doing good philosophy of science.

That being said, it must be admitted that many scientists today take little interest in philosophy of science, and know little about it. While this is unfortunate, it is not an indication that philosophical issues are no longer relevant. Rather it is a consequence of the increasingly specialized nature of science, and of the polarization between the sciences and the humanities that characterizes much modern education.

Psychology is the science of the act of experiencing, and deals with the whole system of such acts as they make up mental life.

Vaccination is the medical sacrament corresponding to baptism. Whether it is or is not more efficacious I do not know.

And wisely tell what hour o' th' dayThe clock doth strike, by algebra.

Life is not an exact science, it is an art.

The Athanasian Creed is to me light and intelligible reading in comparison with much that now passes for science.

I am the enfant terrible of literature and science. If I cannot, and I know I cannot, get the literary and scientific big-wigs to give me a shilling, I can, and I know I can, heave bricks into the middle of them.

Language is the only instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas.

When I first collected these authorities, I was desirous that every quotation should be useful to some other end than the illustration of a word; I therefore extracted from philosophers principles of science; from historians remarkable facts; from chymists complete processes; from divines striking exhortations; and from poets beautiful descriptions.

Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas.

About this same time Abbe Beauchamp, vicar-general at Baghdad and correspondent of the Academy of Science, was making careful and accurate observations

I also believe that the most meaningful change, where individuals can triumph over both entropy and evolution as it were, comes when people use empirical knowledge against good taste, use strength against power, skill against art, and technology against science in their easiest and unthinking modes.

In a hundred years they may both be sciences. Fine. But today a person who learns the rules of art well is a little rarer than the person who learns the rules of science. Also

In a hundred years they may both be sciences. Fine. But today a person who learns the rules of art well is a little rarer than the person who learns the rules of science.