The moral issue here is whether the United States Congress is going to stand in the way of science and preclude scientists from doing lifesaving research.
The publication of the third volume of Capital has made hardly any impression upon bourgeois economic science.
When science tries to resolve its conflicts by adding and subtracting dimensions to the Universe like houses on a Monopoly board, we need to examine our dogmas.
Science is not about control. It is about cultivating a perpetual condition of wonder in the face of something that forever grows one step richer and subtler than our latest theory about it. It is about reverence, not mastery.
For scientists, growing cells took so much work that they couldn't get much research done. So the selling of cells was really just for the sake of science, and there weren't a lot of profits.
I went through the standard scientific atheist phase when I was about 14. I bought into that package deal of science equals atheism.
Many have gone on to do important scientific work but all remember those wonderful times when we and our science were young and our excitement in meeting new challenges knew no bounds.
I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped.
American high school students trail teenagers from 14 European and Asian countries in reading, math and science. We're even trailing France.
My folks are economists and have taught economics and social science so I grew up with those kind of conversations around the dinner table.
According to materialistic science, any memory requires a material substrate, such as the neuronal network in the brain or the DNA molecules of the genes.
Science is an integral part of culture. It's not this foreign thing, done by an arcane priesthood. It's one of the glories of the human intellectual tradition.
I don't think academic writing ever was wonderful. However, science used to be much less specialized.
Science is not a heartless pursuit of objective information. It is a creative human activity, its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors.
The third-person or 'objective,' static, reductive models used in most science are important and yield significant results, but they have their limitations.
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
When I was in graduate school in consumer science and math, all of the big companies had labs, all doing blue sky research.
Of course, not everybody's willing to go out and do the experiments, but for the people who are willing to go out and do that, - if the experiments don't work, then it means it's not science.
When I got my PhD, it was a time when there were just no jobs for PhDs. Period. PhDs were getting the lowest paid technician jobs, if they were lucky, in any kind of science.
I'm not a scientist. What I find interesting about my work is how, as a designer, I sit between science and the consumer and can see both a need and a solution.
Typically, only about 2 percent of the American populace tunes in to PBS's 'Nova' series - the most successful science show on the tube. 'Survivor' and 'X Factor' get twice the ratings.
