Quotes About Research

Self-knowledge begins when one realizes that there are paradoxes in all philosophical teaching. Whether it's religion or science, this is the best time to research it on your own, rather than sitting on the books all day.

This is not psychoanalysis. It is history.

To discover the exact location of a 'thing' is a simple matter of factual research. To discover the exact location of a person: where to locate the self?

One of the many impressive things about The Way of Glory is how lightly it wears its scrupulous research. This fine novel invites you to lose yourself to the compelling character and tumultuous life of a young woman trying to find God and love at the heart of a crusade rooted in greed and hate. This is a remarkable debut by a writer to watch.

Kaleb had no family, hadn't understood the concept of loyalty the first time he'd read about it - but after researching it, he'd realised it meant being connected to someone who would care if he lived or died, someone who would fight for and with him, someone who didn't want to hurt him. He had never experienced any of those things.

I researched sexual intimacy the same way I research everything else. Methodically and in intricate detail.

When I speak to teachers, it's always remarkable to me how unaware they are of the research literature—especially young teachers or student teachers." Yet when it comes to homework, most teachers are true believers.

Put bluntly, abortion supporters have lost the argument on the scientific level.

Now science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that have for so long been beyond our grasp.

But one of the frustrating symptoms of my depression and anxiety is that I had no attention span at all. I would read one paragraph and then realize that I had no idea what I had just read, or I'd accidentally reread the same paragraph, over and over. I was desperate to find articles or research by someone who understood what I was going through.

While the idea of equal time for opposing opinions makes sense in a two-party political system, it does not work for science, because science is not about opinion. It is about evidence.

Science is pretty much the same. A conclusion becomes established not when a clever person proposes it, or even a group of people begin to discuss it, but when the jury of peers—the community of researchers—reviews the evidence and concludes that it is sufficient to accept the claim.

The Heartland Institute is known among climate scientists for persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of "experts" who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is a fake.75 But Heartland's activities are far more extensive, and reach back into the 1990s when they, too, were working with Philip Morris.

Congress was also looking into climate change. The 1978 National Climate Act had established a national climate research program,

As University of California professor Stanton Glantz and his colleagues have shown in their exhaustive reading of tobacco industry documents, by the early 1960s the industry's own scientists had concluded not only that smoking caused cancer, but also that nicotine was addictive (a conclusion that mainstream scientists came to only in the 1980s, and the industry would continue to deny well into the 1990s).58

In "My Adventures in the Ozone Layer," he cast the scientific community as dominated by self-interest. "It's not difficult to understand some of the motivations behind the drive to regulate CFCs out of existence," he wrote. "For scientists: prestige, more grants for research, press conferences, and newspaper stories. Also the feeling that maybe they are saving the world for future generations."69 (As if saving the world would be a bad thing!)

This is a characteristic pattern in science: first there is scattered evidence of a phenomenon, published in specialist journals or reports, and then someone begins to connect the dots.

If science took the side of regulation—or even gave evidence to support the idea that regulation might be needed to protect the life on Earth—then science, the very thing Jastrow, Nierenberg, Teller, and Frederick Seitz had spent their working careers trying to build up, would now have to be torn down.

If science took the side of regulation—or even gave evidence to support the idea that regulation might be needed to protect the life on Earth—then science, the very thing Jastrow, Nierenberg, Teller, and Frederick Seitz had spent their working careers trying to build

A focus on one method above all others is a kind of fetish. These cases suggest that some of the historical examples of "science gone awry" arose from what I designate methodological fetishism. These are situations where investigators privileged a particular method and ignored or discounted evidence obtained by other methods, which, if heeded, could have changed their minds.

The chapters written by the natural scientists were broadly consistent with what other natural scientists had already said. No one challenged the basic claim that warming would occur, with serious physical and biological ramifications.

Historian Robert Proctor has recently documented the creation of newsletters, magazines, and journals—including journals with ostensible peer review—in which the results of industry-sponsored research could be reported, published, and then cited, as if they were independent. These included Tobacco and Health, Science Fortnightly, and the Indoor Air Journal.13 It was a simulacrum of science, but not science itself.

estrogen spurs the growth of many cell types—mammal, insect, grain.

Nadine Gormey. Vice president, biochemical research. Hilarious.