Quotes About Science

This is what is meant by the phenomenology of the science-making process: Self-observation always leads us to an existential point about the metaphysics of experience, and it is almost always a transforming moment. (p. 286)

If the supernatural in a conventional sense is no longer possible, what remains after the "death of God" is an occulted, hidden world. Philosophically speaking, the enigma we face is how to confront this world, without immediately presuming that it is identical to the world-for-us (the world of science and religion), and without simply disparaging it as an irretrievable and inaccessible world-in-itself.

In proposing that one truth may derail another, it invites an enduring question—do we believe vaccination to be more monstrous than disease?

The laws of water are very difficult. No matter how many times it is explained to me, I don't understand how the tides work. I know, of course, that water will seek a level. I know that it will only flow down.

the popular conception of the gene as a simple causal agent is not valid. The idea that there is a gene for adventurousness, heart disease, obesity, religiosity, homosexuality, shyness, stupidity, or any other aspect of mind or body has no place on the platform of genetic discourse.

Statistics The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.

For Newton and the scientists of his time, God had set up the universe and set it in motion. Newton's laws simply governed the running of the universe. That is how Newton saw the workings of God and the workings of God's universe.

Scientific knowledge is, by its nature, provisional. This is due to the fact that as time goes on, with the invention of better instruments, more data and better data hone our understanding further. Social, cultural, economic, and political context are relevant to our understanding of how science works.

I'd be perfectly happy with a mathematically precise description of how time began. I see science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.

Science fiction can be very relevant, could be good literature.

From early childhood, I was interested in understanding how the world worked, and assumed I would be some kind of physical scientist or chemist. But the truth was, I didn't know there was another kind of world, the inner world, that was just as interesting, if not more relevant, than what was going on in the outside world.

I make ancient wisdom relevant, but through modern research and science.

Science cannot progress without reliable and accurate measurement of what it is you are trying to study. The key is measurement, simple as that.

Governments should want and even crave the best possible scientific advice. With reliable knowledge come better decisions, fewer mistakes and more results achieved for each pound spent.

Nuclear is the largest source of clean, carbon-free power in rich nations, and the science shows it is the safest way to make reliable electricity.

If I'm not mistaken, I think Data was the comic relief on the show.

Religion and science are the two conjugated faces or phases of one and the same complete act of knowledge - the only one which can embrace the past and future of evolution and so contemplate, measure and fulfil them.

One of the things that all religions have is a narrative of doomsday. There has to be some kind of overarching fear of the future. If there wasn't, none of the religions could invoke this important thing - that science has no evidence of, by the way - called free will.

In a way, I think science is the modern religion, and at times, I despise it as much as I despise other religions because it really will only accept stuff that fits its masculine ability to define the world.

There are many very educated people who are religious, but they're not creationists.

I certainly saw science as a kind of calling, and one with as much legitimacy as a religious calling.

Pope Francis is not the first religious leader who has endorsed evolution and the Big Bang, but he is certainly one of the most influential.

We know that at conception, the genetic code is there for a unique individual. This is not something that is just a religious belief.

It is no coincidence that so many religious beliefs date back to times when no science could possibly have accounted satisfactorily for many of the natural phenomena inspiring scripture and myths.