Quotes About Science

Love is a matter of chemistry, sex is a matter of physics.

I have heard experimental physicist complain sotto voce that some of the best theoreticians have largely stopped doing physics and started to indulge in what is sometimes described as 'mathematical masturbation'.

Everything we've been taught about the origins of civilization may be wrong," says Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, PhD, senior geologist with the Research Center for Geotechnology at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

Science in the twenty-first century does NOT encourage scientists to take risks in their pursuit of "the facts"—particularly when those facts call into question long-established notions

if evidence supports established theories then that evidence will be accepted. But if evidence undermines established theories, then that evidence must be rejected.

A wise man of Old Earth had once claimed that science would destroy mankind, not through its weapons of mass destruction, but through finally proving that there was no god.

They're trying to understand what space is. That's tough for them. They break distances down into concentrations of chemicals. For them, space is a range of taste intensities.

We've been half right about a lot of things, but there's something missing from our theories, something whose nature we haven't even guessed yet. If we don't learn to understand it, it will kill us.

I hope you theorists know what you're doing.' 'I can assure you that we don't. The geometry is still beyond us. All I learnt in the void was that our best guess so far is certainly wrong.

Science has been abused for every conceivable purpose under the sun. Which is all the more reason to deliver the power it grants to as many people as possible, as rapidly as possible, instead of leaving it in the hands of a few. It is not a reason to retreat into fantasy – to declare: knowledge is a cultural artifact, nothing is universally true, only mysticism and obfuscation and ignorance will save us.

Imagine the time, a dozen generations from now, when wave mechanics powers every machine and everyone takes it for granted. Do you really want them thinking that it fell from the sky, fully formed, when the truth is that they owe their good fortune to the most powerful engine of change in history: people arguing about science.

Whatever elaborate, and grotesquely counter-intuitive, underpinnings there might be to familiar reality, it stubbornly continues to be familiar. When Rutherford showed that atoms were mostly empty space, did the ground become any less solid? The truth itself changes nothing.

I've never believed in wormholes," Fatima confessed. "Take two in relative motion and you've got a time machine. And I definitely don't believe in time machines." -"Maybe you can believe in just one wormhole at a time," Gabrielle replied, deadpan.

Haven't you heard of Occam's Razor: once you have a perfectly simple explanation for something, you don't go looking for ever more complicated ways of explaining the very same thing?

Opponents replied that when you modeled a hurricane, nobody got wet. When you modeled a fusion power plant, no energy was produced. When you modeled digestion and metabolism, no nutrients were consumed – no real digestion took place. So, when you modeled the human brain, why should you expect real thought to occur?

The society with lots of open disagreement and social conflict is the one surging with power in art, science, commerce, constructive social reform, and (most of all) religious revival; the hushed-up society where everyone is afraid to say what he thinks is on the brink of violence and collapse.

You say science is about admitting what we don't know," she said.

The unbeliever attempts to enlist logic, science, and morality in his debate against the truth of Christianity. Van Til's apologetic answers these attempts by arguing that only the truth of Christianity can rescue the meaningfulness and cogency of logic, science, and morality.

Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues 'no air exists' but continues to breathe air while he argues. Now intellectually, atheists, continue to breathe-they continue to use reason and draw scientific conclusions [which assumes an orderly universe], to make moral judgements [which assumes absolute values]-but the atheistic view of things would in theory makes such 'breathing' impossible. They are breathing God's air all the time they are arguing against him.

The atheist says we live in a random universe, he has no right to rely on inductive inference, he has no reason to expect causality, or simply the uniformity of nature. He has no basis for believing in the uniformity of nature, but if he has no basis for the uniformity of nature he has no basis for doing science, it's gone, kaput. Biology, chemistry, astronomy, psychology, history, grammar, all of it is gone, there are no sciences without inductive inference

Wine me, dine me, Deep Space Nine me.

For those who think that the NDE has been satisfactorily explained by science, their advice is sobering: "Theories proposed thus far consist largely of unsupported speculations about what might be happening during an NDE".111

many reasons to learn how to program: To understand our world. To study and understand processes. To be able to ask questions about the influences on their lives. To use an important new form of literacy. To have a new way to learn art, music, science, and mathematics. As a job skill. To use computers better. As a medium in which to learn problem-solving.

The basic elements of DNA—hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon—translate directly to key letters of the Hebrew and Arabic alphabets. In these languages, our genetic code spells the ancient name of God. The same name lives within all humans, regardless of their beliefs, actions, lifestyle, religion, or heritage. This relationship was described in sacred texts, such as the Hebrew Sepher Yetzirah, at least 1,000 years before modern science verified such connections.