"science"タグの名言

The deeper a thing is, the more interesting it is

All the Universe is full of the life of perfect creatures.

He was a fast and proficient chemist and so was I. The shrink says she doesn't question that. But what every scientist knows—you can't just be proficient; you have to have insight.

The proponents of this bizarre science are not the traditional ulema but, instead, holders of high-level degrees in scientific fields. Most of them have studied in the West, although almost none of them have any significant professional achievements to their credit. Islamic science provides a refuge from the challenge of doing difficult science.

Science Technology Engineering and Math is still necessary to know if you dream of being a filmmaker. Filmmaking is an art form, but with the use of STEM. - Kailin Gow.

Again, for the record, let me restate: you can't be rude to a coffee grinder and only an idiot would thank it for pulverizing beans. But you could, and probably should, unplug it if it doesn't shut up.

Objectivity is made possible because experiment and logical consistency are the sole arbiters of truth - of no consequence is the scientist's mood or moral character, his political beliefs or nationality. or even his status in the world of science. On this last point, consider, for example, that Einstein was never taken too seriously when he (wrongly) set out to criticize quantum mechanics - this in spite of the fact that he was acknowledged as the greatest living physicist of the time.

Oh Antonio,” Auntabelle said, acting coy. It was not a side I’ve seen before. Maybe she was as smitten by Dr. Antonio as he was of her. If science was an indication of how relationships would go, I guess Auntabelle and Antonio definitely had the right chemistry. They looked beautiful together. - Amazon Lee and the Ancient Undead of Rome by Kira G. and Kailin Gow

Scientists, for their part, need to be far more engaged with current public debates. They “should not be afraid of making their voice heard when the debate wanders into their field of expertise, be it medicine or history. Silence isn’t neuatrality; it is supporting the status quo. Of course, it is extremely important to go on doing academic research and to publish the results in scientific journals that only a few experts read. But it is equally important to communicate the latest scientific theories to the general public through popular-science books, and even through the skilful use of art and fiction.

It is the responsibility of all of us to invest time and effort in uncovering our biases and in verifying our sources of information. As noted in earlier chapters, we cannot investigate everything ourselves. But precisely because of that, we need at least to investigate carefully our favourite sources of information – be they a newspaper, a website, a TV network or a person. In Chapter 20 we will explore in far greater depth how to avoid brainwashing and how to distinguish reality from fiction. Here I would like to offer two simple rules of thumb. First, if you want reliable information – pay good money for it. If you get your news for free, you might well be the product. Suppose a shady billionaire offered you the following deal: ‘I will pay you $30 a month, and in exchange, you will allow me to brainwash you for an hour every day, installing in your mind whichever political and commercial biases I want.’ Would you take the deal? Few sane people would. So the shady billionaire offers a slightly different deal: ‘You will allow me to brainwash you for one hour every day, and in exchange, I will not charge you anything for this service. The second rule of thumb is that if some issue seems exceptionally important to you, make the effort to read the relevant scientific literature. And by scientific literature I mean peer-reviewed articles, books published by well-known academic publishers, and the writings of professors from reputable institutions. Science obviously has its limitations, and it has got many things wrong in the past. Nevertheless, the scientific community has been our most reliable source of knowledge for centuries. If you think that the scientific community is wrong about something, that’s certainly possible, but at least know the scientific theories you are rejecting, and provide some empirical evidence to support your claim.

A photon is defined as a package of light-what are you defined as?

Science finds it hard to decipher the mysteries of the mind largely because we lack efficient tools. Many people, including many scientists, tend to confuse the mind with the brain, but they are really very different things. The brain is a material network of neurons, synapses and biochemicals. The mind is a flow of subjective experiences, such as pain, pleasure, anger and love. Biologists assume that the brain somehow produces the mind, and that biochemical reactions in billions of neurons somehow produce experiences such as pain and love. However, so far we have absolutely no explanation for how the mind emerges from the brain. How come when billions of neurons are firing electrical signals in a particular pattern, I feel pain, and when the neurons fire in a different pattern, I feel love? We haven’t got a clue. Hence even if the mind indeed emerges from the brain, at least for now studying the mind is a different undertaking than studying the brain.

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? 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? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him? Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant! However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.

More than 99.99% of facts are not and will never be useful to even a single person.

Science is the supreme expression of man's rationality.

Technology has really helped me and has been a big part of my life, so maybe that is why I am such a fan of science or maybe I just like to think about how things work and how I can make them work even better.

Live as you are involved in some great cosmic event

How dare they be so arrogant and presume only their medical methods are fit for public consumption, and not those of a more naturalistic and naturopathic approach?

Știința este încercarea de a găsi dovezi fizice pentru ceea ce este necunoscut sau încă nedefinit, de a respinge superstitițiile și percepțiile greșite în favoarea adevărurilor observabile. Când știința oferă un răspuns, acesta este universal. Iar omenirea nu se războiește din cauza lui, ci face front comun în jurul lui.

When facts are treated as if they were opinions, when there is no universal standard by which to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in the reporting of events of the day, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe, where there is no possibility of reaching any conclusion not predetermined by those who interpret the official, divinely inspired text.