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.
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.
My personal feeling about science fiction is that it's always in some way connected to the real world, to our everyday world.
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.
People have contemplated the origin and evolution of the universe since before the time of Aristotle. Very recently, the era of speculation has given way to a time of science.
The nineteenth century believed in science but the twentieth century does not.
The desire to economize time and mental effort in arithmetical computations, and to eliminate human liability to error is probably as old as the science of arithmetic itself.
Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
I had learned that science is a rewarding, active process of discovery, not the passive absorption of what others had discovered.
The humanities need to be defended today against the encroachments of physical science, as they once needed to be against the encroachment of theology.
The relevance of Marxism to science is that it removes it from its imagined position of complete detachment and shows it as a part, but a critically important part, of economy and social development.
