Quotes About Evidence

Observation: I can't see a thing. Conclusion: Dinosaurs.

This hostility to science, in the face of its obvious triumphs and benefits, is Ã¢â'¬Â¦ evidence that it is something outside the mainstream of human development, perhaps a fluke.

Do you believe in UFOs?' I'm always struck by how the question is phrased, the suggestion that this is a matter of belief and not of evidence. I'm almost never asked, 'How good is the evidence that UFOs are alien spaceships?

And what is the evidence for this conclusion? Chiefly, it is the 11th and 12th verses of Luke, Chapter 21, in which Jesus talks about "great signs from Heaven"—nothing like a UFO is described—in the last days. Typically, Lindsey ignores verse 32, in which Jesus makes it very clear he is talking about events in the first, not the twentieth, century.

The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols, is the pathway to a dark age.

We must surrender our skepticism only in the face of rock-solid evidence. Science demands a tolerance for ambiguity.

Both science and democracy encourage unconventional opinions and vigorous debate. Both demand adequate reason, coherent argument, rigorous standards of evidence and honesty. Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied to where it has no business being.

There's a certain discipline involved. We can't just go off shouting 'little green men' every time we detect something we don't at first understand, because we're going to look mighty silly when it turns out to be something else. Special cautions are necessary when the stakes are high. We are not obliged to make up our minds before the evidence is in. It's permitted to not be sure.

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and—especially important—to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follow from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true

All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their television commercials.

La prueba de ausencia no es prueba de ausencia

Mars has become a kind of mythic arena onto which we have projected our earthly hopes and fears. But our psychological predispositions pro or con must not mislead us. All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence is not yet in.

the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

Pseudoscience is easier to contrive than science, because distracting confrontations with reality—where we cannot control the outcome of the comparison—are more readily avoided. The standards of argument, what passes for evidence, are much more relaxed. In part for these same reasons, it is much easier to present pseudoscience to the general public than science. But this isn't enough to explain its popularity.

Another contemporary example is the "war" on drugs—where the government and munificently funded civic groups systematically distort and even invent scientific evidence of adverse effects (especially of marijuana), and in which no public official is permitted even to raise the topic for open discussion.

When I say I'm an agnostic, I only mean that the evidence isn't in. There isn't compelling evidence that God exists—at least your kind of god—and there isn't compelling evidence that he doesn't.

I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

Uma marca infalível do amor à verdade", escreveu John Locke em 1690, "é não considerar nenhuma proposição com uma convicção maior do que a autorizada pelas provas em que se fundamenta.

science carries us towards an understanding of how the world is, rather than how we would wish it to be [...]

the credibility is a consequence of the method.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absences

I do not want to believe. I want to know.

Are the worlds of more advanced civilizations totally geometrized, entirely rebuilt by their inhabitants? Or would the signature of really advanced civilization be that they left no sign at all?

The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence.