Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Galileo was no idiot. Only an idiot could believe that science requires martyrdom - that may be necessary in religion, but in time a scientific result will establish itself.
The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms... The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma.
The wise man regulates his conduct by the theories both of religion and science. But he regards these theories not as statements of ultimate fact but as art-forms.
In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.
In both religion and science, some people are dishonest, exploitative, incompetent and exhibit other human failings.
Indeed, every true science has for its object the determination of certain phenomena by means of others, in accordance with the relations which exist between them.
I'm more inclined to linger in the science pages of 'The Week' magazine. But my principle obsessions are still watching sitcoms and football.
Science is telling us that we can do phenomenal things if we put our minds and our resources to it.
Science has explained nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness.
It is easier for a libertarian to attack the science of global warming than to alter one's core libertarian beliefs.
You can't stop technology or science, and it is snowballing quicker than ever. Something's got to come to a head. How? Who knows? But it will.
Sound science must be a basis to governing our trade relations around the globe.
One of the wonders of science is that it is completely universal. It crosses national boundaries with total ease.
Years of science fiction have produced a mindset that it is human destiny to expand from Earth, to the Moon, to Mars, to the stars.
Science is not, despite how it is often portrayed, about absolute truths. It is about developing an understanding of the world, making predictions, and then testing these predictions.
That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder.
True science is never speculative; it employs hypotheses as suggesting points for inquiry, but it never adopts the hypotheses as though they were demonstrated propositions.
I'm writing a review of three books on feminism and science, and it's about social constructionism. So I would say I'm a social constructionist, whatever that means.
The development of science is basically a social phenomenon, dependent on hard work and mutual support of many scientists and on the societies in which they live.
I've spent a lot of time trying to understand how all the big cosmetics companies get away with the placebo science and unscientific claims.
