Quotes about scientific

Unfortunately what is little recognized is that the most worthwhile scientific books are those in which the author clearly indicates what he does not know for an author most hurts his readers by concealing difficulties.

You can always try another approach even change your subject when a scientific strategy or experiment fails.

When the experts’ scientific knowledge is legitimated in terms of being rational, logical, efficient, educated, progressive, modern, and enlightened, what analogies can other segments of society . . . utilize to challenge them?

I have seen many phases of life; I have moved in imperial circles, I have been a Minister of State; but if I had to live my life again, I would always remain in my laboratory, for the greatest joy of my life has been to accomplish original scientific work, and, next to that, to lecture to a set of intelligent students.

From this we conclude, that, to live in harmony and peace…we must trace a line of distinction between those (assertions) that are capable of verification, and those that are not; (we must) separate by an inviolable barrier the world of fantastical beings from the world of realities.

In saying the word ‘Sachchidanand’ [sat-chit-anand, eternal knowledge and vision leading to bliss], it has great ‘effect’. There is an ‘effect’ even when it is said without the understanding [of it’s meaning]. When it is said with the understanding, there is tremendous benefit. Saying these words produces vibrations and everything churns. Everything is ‘Scientific’.

There is no quarrel between science and spirituality. I often hear people of science trying to use it to prove the nonexistence of the spiritual, but I simply can't see a chasm in between the two. What is spiritual produces what is scientific and when science is used to disprove the spiritual, it's always done with the intent to do so; a personal contempt. As a result, scientists today only prove their inferiority to the great founding fathers of the sciences who were practitioners of alchemy. T

The ‘Gnani’ is in the form of an instrument to attain the goal (Experience of Pure Soul). The goal is the scientific form of Soul (vignan swarup atma).

Charging [creation of new karma] is under ‘your’ control and discharge [disposal of karma] is in nature’s control. Therefore, if you want to charge, charge positively. Whatever you have charged, nature will not refrain from discharging.

There is no place for beggary [wanting things from others] in the current era. The law of vyavasthit [scientific circumstantial evidences] is such that one who has decided never to beg, will never have situation to beg.

No matter what the other person says, then take the bottom line out of it, everything in this world is ‘vyavasthit’ [result of scientific circumstantial evidences]. So don’t tell anyone, ‘you did wrong’. Not only should you not say this, you should not even think it.

Clashes should not occur whatsoever. Due to conflicts only have the energies diminished. Regardless of what may happen to the body, do not ever enter into conflicts. The body is not going to go away just because someone says so, or if someone casts a curse on it. The body is under the control of vyavasthit [scientific circumstantial evidences].

You can remain faultless only when you constantly remain as a nimit [instrument, one of the doer and not the whole and sole doer] and remain in the intent of being an instrument [intent that I am one of the doer of many scientific circumstantial evidences]

Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion.

In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not...

My religious convictions and scientific views cannot at present be more specifically defined than as those of a believer in creative evolution. I desire that no public monument or work of art or inscription or sermon or ritual service commemorating me shall suggest that I accepted the tenets peculiar to any established church or denomination nor take the form of a cross or any other instrument of torture or symbol of blood sacr

The assumption of an absolute determinism is the essential foundation of every scientific enquiry.

New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.

All humanity needs, is to be reminded that there has always existed a human consensus on all common human needs and desires (extremely long life in perfect health, abundance, well-being), and that now, transgressing the religious option, he has achieved the scientific option of working for all of them, and for much more.His rationality, guided by both his ambition and inspiration, will do the rest.WHATEVER RELIGION PROMISES, SCIENCE WILL DELIVER.

In this world we do not have to become the doer, we have to become nimit [an instrument, one of the many scientific circumstantial evidence, not the whole and sole doer].

I independently produce scientific advancements to share with everyone, and that is over seven billion people!

It is now generally admitted, at any rate by philosophers, that the existence of a being having the attributes which define the god of any non-animistic religion cannot be demonstratively proved... [A]ll utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical.

The scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.

I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.

One can not impede scientific progress.

It is right that we be concerned with the scientific probity of metaphysics.

That knowledge which is popular is not scientific.

It used to be, it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

Indeed, scientific truth by consensus has had a uniformly bad history.

No real excellence, personal or social, artistic, philosophical, scientific, or moral, can arise without solitude.

The first revolution is to transform the status of evaluation from untouchable to respectable , i.e., from the days a century ago when the value-free doctrine held that there could be no place for the serious treatment of evaluation within the sciences (or in the company of other respectable disciplines like history, jurisprudence, mathematics, etc.) to the days when even the National Academy of Sciences is doing evaluations at the request of Congress without protest from leading scientific and

Apostasy was the major justification for terminating internal opposition throughout the history of Islamic empires. That is why we have heard of whole tribes and groups being eradicated for apostasy. Muslim philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were killed or exiled for apostasy and thus, the Muslim world stood still in all scientific and aesthetic fields.

God is not an alternative to science as an explanation, he is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps, he is the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise. It is important to stress this because influential authors such as Richard Dawkins will insist on conceiving of God as an explanatory alternative to science – an idea that is nowhere to be found in theological reflection of any depth. Dawkins is the

Painting is so poetic, while sculpture is more logical and scientific and makes you worry about gravity.

Every new discovery is assumed at once into the sum total of knowledge, and with that ceases in a sense to be a discovery; it dissolves into the whole and disappears, and one must have a trained scientific eye even to recognize it after that.

We can distinguish three groups of scientific men. In the first and very small group we have the men who discover fundamental relations. Among these are van't Hoff, Arrhenius and Nernst. In the second group we have the men who do not make the great discovery but who see the importance and bearing of it, and who preach the gospel to the heathen. Ostwald stands absolutely at the head of this group. The last group contains the rest of us, the men who have to have things explained to us.

Random search for data on ... off-chance is hardly scientific. A questionnaire on 'Intellectual Immoralities' was circulated by a well-known institution. 'Intellectual Immorality No. 4' read: 'Generalizing beyond one's data'. [Wilder Dwight] Bancroft asked whether it would not be more correct to word question no. 4 'Not generalizing beyond one's data.

Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify

Listen,” whispers Dario. “How still it is.” They stand under a darkened archway, the only sound a whispered squeak where docked gondolas rub against each other. Negative ions from the lapping water release serotonin, and the brains of these two flood with the nourishment of each other’s breath, each other’s chi.

The most satisfactory definition of man from the scientific point of view is probably Man the Tool-maker.

Science Fiction is a safe, fertile arena in which to rehearse the potential scientific facts of tomorrow

If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability.

Remember that [scientific thought] is the guide of action; that the truth which it arrives at is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we may act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress itself.

Yay, science.

Think of instinct as an unscientific, unquantifiable tool that can be used along with more concrete evaluations to make a well-rounded decision.

Good listeners, I don’t need to tell you that now more than ever, we’re living in Godless times. We’re living in a time when the Bible is shunned in our schools in favour of scientific evolutionary lies, where many are expelling God from their hearts, where sodomites and baby murderers and heathens and Islamofascists have more rights in our country than good Christian men and women. Where Sodom and Gomorrah cast a pall over every aspect of our daily lives, and our world leaders are trying with a

… scientific thought does not mean thought about scientific subjects with long names. There are no scientific subjects. The subject of science is the human universe; that is to say, everything that is, or has been, or may be related to man.

Either god exists or it doesn’t exist. If a god does exist, it either interacts with the universe in some detectable way or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, that god is indistinguishable from a non-existent god. That only leaves a god who interacts with the universe in some detectable way. But if science, which is the greatest realization of the use of our senses to, you know, detect things, hasn’t found this god, that doesn’t say much for individuals.In short, the god you’ve created is, in fact, unde

But at the same time, there must never be the least hesitation in giving up a position the moment it is shown to be untenable. It is not going too far to say that the greatness of a scientific investigator does not rest on the fact of his having never made a mistake, but rather on his readiness to admit that he has done so, whenever the contrary evidence is cogent enough.

Observable Fact: I don’t believe in magic.Observable Fact: We are magic.

There’s no such thing as an unbreakable scientific rule, because, sooner or later, they all seem to get broken. Or to change.

Dreams are a scientific fact.

The aim of scientific thought, then, is to apply past experience to new circumstances; the instrument is an observed uniformity in the course of events. By the use of this instrument it gives us information transcending our experience, it enables us to infer things that we have not seen from things that we have seen; and the evidence for the truth of that information depends on our supposing that the uniformity holds good beyond our experience.