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.
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.
Magic provides a way of still having room for possibilities, an unlimited sense of what the world offers. Magic is always there when science is found wanting.
There are few moments in science in which you genuinely are excited. The discovery of superfluidity in helium-3 was one of those moments.
Scientists generally are really chicken about getting involved in some kind of dispute. As a broadcaster, I find it very difficult to urge them, if it is a controversial subject. They don't want to have science being portrayed badly.
Both of these branches of evolutionary science, are, in my opinion, in the closest causal connection; this arises from the reciprocal action of the laws of heredity and adaptation.
I don't recall any interest in science in particular. It came later in college.
I was very much into science when I was young - I wanted to be a marine biologist, then I wanted to be a doctor, and then something else, I was always changing.
Unfortunately, things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect.
