Quotes About Science

Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.

Robots have a rich and storied history in movies.

Those theologians who are beginning to take the doctrine of creation very seriously should pay some attention to science's story.

I very much enjoyed my career in science. I didn't leave science because I was disillusioned, but felt I'd done my bit for it after about twenty-five years.

Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can't construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history.

People, and especially theologians, should try to familiarize themselves with scientific ideas. Of course, science is technical in many respects, but there are some very good books that try to set out some of the conceptual structure of science.

I also think we need to maintain distinctions - the doctrine of creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science.

If we are seeking to serve the God of truth then we should really welcome truth from whatever source it comes. We shouldn't fear the truth. Some of it will be from science, obviously, but by no means all of it. It will sometimes by perplexing, how this bit of truth relates to that bit of truth; we know that within science itself often enough and we find it outside of science as well. The crucial thing is to be honest.

If the physicists seem to achieve their ends more successfully than the theologians, that is simply a reflection of how much easier science is than theology.

scientific discovery requires the boldness of provisional commitment to a point of view, while remaining aware that this may require subsequent modification in the light of further experience.

In the scientific community, the adjective 'theological' is some- times used pejoratively to refer to a vague or ill-formulated belief. I believe this usage to be very far from the truth. It sad- dens me that some of my colleagues remain unaware of the truth-seeking intent and rational scrupulosity that character- ise theological discourse at its best.

As a consequence, scientists who are carefully reflective about their activity do not instinctively ask the question 'Is it reasonable?' as if they were confident beforehand what shape rationality had to take. We have noted how 'unreasonable', in classical Newtonian terms, the nature of light turned out to be. Instead, for the scientist the proper phrasing of the truth- seeking question takes the form, 'What makes you think that might be the case?

Dokonce badatel v oboru potÃ…â"¢ebuje kalkula?ku a pár minut, aby vám spo?ítal rozdíl hlasitosti mezi 53 decibely a 87 decibely.

The researchers publishing in this area are careful to attach the appropriate caveats to their findings, but the media and blogosphere have an annoying habit of ignoring caveats.

The home gardener is part scientist, part artist, part philosopher, part ploughman.

Paradoxically, therefore, as economics becomes more truly scientific, it will become less of a science. Acknowledging these limitations will free it to serve us once more.

This is what you get for letting rednecks play with antimatter, boss

History, while it should be scientific in its method, should pursue a practical object. That is, it should not merely gratify the reader's curiosity about the past, but modify his view of the present and his forecast of the future.

History without political science has no fruit. Political science without history has no root.

The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.

There is a disturbing fact about current science. If a contemporary journal editor received a manuscript from an unknown clerk working in a nondescript place, that editor would, in all likelihood, reject it, possibly without even reading it. Yet Einstein, an unknown clerk working in a nondescript place, produced one of the most significant and beautiful manuscripts in the history of physics.

define logic as the science which treats of the operations of the human understanding in the pursuit of truth.

Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded. With the claims which any proposition has to belief on the evidence of consciousness—that is, without evidence in the proper sense of the word—logic has nothing to do.

And if several of the more difficult sciences are still [pg 023] in so defective a state; if not only so little is proved, but disputation has not terminated even about the little which seemed to be so; the reason perhaps is, that men's logical notions have not yet acquired the degree of extension, or of accuracy, requisite for the estimation of the evidence proper to those particular departments of knowledge.