Quotes About Validity

Opinionum enim commenta delet dies; naturæ judicia confirmat. Time destroys the groundless conceits of men; it confirms decisions founded on reality.

An awkward, unscientific lie is often as ineffectual as the truth.

he never knows what he's saying. He says everything, so he has to be right some of the time.

Lack of the power to discriminate is no less evident in the sciences, namely in the tenacious life of false and refuted theories. Once come into general credit, they continue to defy truth for centuries. - On Various Subjects

Logika doprowadzi? mo?e jedynie do formalnej prawdy, nie za? materialnej.

If you're happy in a dream…does that count? The happiness–does it count?

There were rumours and counter­rumours. There were rumours that might have been true, and truths that ought to have been just rumours.

theology, the doctrine of God, which is always attacked and ridiculed by philosophy, which claims to be wisdom itself. And medicine, which always questions the validity of philosophy, and doesn't consider theology a science but a superstition…

If ideas and beliefs are to be denied validity outside the geographical and cultural bounds of their origin, Buddhism would be confined to north India, Christianity to a narrow tract in the Middle East and Islam to Arabia.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality

Now you see, Dr. Stadler, you're speaking as if this book were addressing to a thinking audience. If it were, one would have to be concerned with such matters as accuracy, validity, logic and the prestige of science. But it isn't. It's addressed to the public.

When somebody says something that's correct, he has no need to look good.

Look, whatever hayseed laws you pass in Who-Knows-What - Hell-Knows-Where. Don't amount to a hill of beans back here, as your type might say.

Scientific questions cannot be decided by majority vote in any case.

But how you feel and how long you feel it doesn't always have a lot to do with objective truth.

Best before: 19 March 2007

Those two rules define a decision-making system which people can agree to use to figure out whose opinions are worth believing. Under this system, you can do anything you wish to test a statement, as long as you follow the rules, which effectively say: • The system may not fix the outcome in advance or for good (no final say). • The system may not distinguish between participants (no personal authority).

Persons who dismiss stories such as those of Keith John Sampson as merely "anecdotal" need to be reminded that the plural of "anecdote" is "data.

Let us proceed under the assumption that the fairy folk do exist, and that I am not a gibbering moron.

The blue sky, the moral act, the moment of grief have their absolute validity, independent of the before and the after.

It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share certain ideas and feelings proves the validity of these ideas and feelings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consensual validation as such has no bearing on reason or mental health.

The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the sake of a return; he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, "ultramodern." Old truths can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the Right does not have a time-bound, but a sovereign mind.

Real science is all about critically appraising the evidence for somebody else's position.

They were skeptical of my youth and inexperience, probably rightly so.