In this post, you will find great Scientists Quotes from famous people, such as Marco Rubio, Leonard Mlodinow, Robert Winston, Sheldon Lee Glashow, John Sulston. You can learn and implement many lessons from these quotes.
I think it’s important for scientists to be a bit less arrogant, a bit more humble, recognising we are capable of making mistakes and being fallacious – which is increasingly serious in a society where our work may have unpredictable consequences.
Month after month, Wizard Academy equips people who want to make a difference. This is why journalists and scientists and artists and educators and business owners and advertising professionals and ministers are attracted to our little school.
One way we can enliven the imagination is to push it toward the illogical. We’re not scientists. We don’t always have to make the logical, reasonable leap.
Political scientists have long argued that party identification is the best possible predictor of voting behavior and is remarkably sticky over time.
The human body and mind are tremendous forces that are continually amazing scientists and society. Therefore, we have no choice but to keep an open mind as to what the human being can achieve.
Scientists are not delinquents. Our work has changed the conditions in which men live, but the use made of these changes is the problem of governments, not of scientists.
While some politicians argue over whether to believe scientists’ almost overwhelming consensus on climate change, the business sector is a believer and is wisely planning ahead.
Now in the 21st century, the boundaries separating chemistry, physics, and medicine have become blurred, and as happened during the Renaissance, scientists are following their curiosities even when they run beyond the formal limits of their training.
As great scientists have said and as all children know, it is above all by the imagination that we achieve perception, and compassion, and hope.
Brighter Than a Thousand Suns’ by Robert Jungk and ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman!’ by Richard Feynman were both books my father purchased for me when I was in high school. Both left a lasting impression on me, because they chronicle the lives of some of the most creative scientists of the 21st century.
The thing is that quite a few of my books have ended up as they are because of conversations I’ve had over the years with forensic scientists.
Most scientific or engineering discoveries would never become successful products without contributions from other scientists or engineers. Every major invention is the child of far-flung parents who may never meet.
I teach at Caltech and oversee a research laboratory there. In general, I find that the majority of young people are excited by the prospects of research, but they soon discover that in the current market, many doctorate-level scientists are holding temporary positions or are unemployed.
Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the fundamentalist scientists.
Computer programmers, biotechnologists, environmental scientists, neuroscientists, nanotech engineers – all of these fields, and more, should have at least a course in ethics as part of their degree requirements.
In every case, the environmental hazards were made known only by independent scientists, who were often bitterly opposed by the corporations responsible for the hazards.
When scientists get old, they get interested in the brain, and I’m a little bit afraid I’m falling into that.
Why is it surprising that scientists might have long hair and wear cowboy boots? In fields like neuroscience, where the events you are recording are so minute, I suspect scientists cultivate a boring, reliable image. A scientist with a reputation for flamboyance might be suspect.
I would say it’s important for scientists to speak out when they can and when they can be listened to.
I don’t think that they have many of the scientists who were involved in the weapons program to talk to at this time, and there were thousands of people, engineers and scientists, they know where the weapons are.
Prominent scientists have become increasingly convinced that the connection between carbon emissions and rising temperatures is real, but skeptics have whole truckloads of studies to demonstrate the opposite.
It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.
So much of the bitterness that the term ‘McCarthyism’ evokes refers to the probe begun in New Jersey in the summer of 1953 – both in the laboratories of Fort Monmouth and in the surrounding communities of Red Bank and Belmar, where some of the best scientists and engineers in America worked.
Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do.
Christian Scientists not only don’t like to acknowledge illness; they don’t like to see it. On occasion, I was sent to my room from the dinner table for sneezing or coughing; I now know that I was allergic to our cat.
No doubt it is true that science cannot study God, but it hardly follows that God had to keep a safe distance from everything that scientists want to study.
The conception that, instead of this, contemporary society is at or near a turning point is very prominent in the views of a school of social scientists who, though they are still comparatively few, are getting more and more of a hearing.
Given that many girls are indoctrinated to believe that they should be feminine and modest about their abilities, as well as brought up to assume that girls are not innately gifted at science or math, it is not surprising that so few can see themselves as successful computer scientists.
Stradivarius, in particular, was the most amazing craftsman and one of the great artists and scientists that ever lived because he figured out something with the sound and the science of acoustics that we still don’t understand it completely.
I have friends, political scientists, sociologists, who all share an interest at least in certain kinds of science fiction.
Okay, I’ll say I would go back in time and bring scientists with me and create a hairspray that would not cause global warming. But it would still give us ’80s hair.
Right now, I am doing the reverse of molecular gastronomy. I’m working with scientists to find ingredients and produce that are proven to be good for you.
Whatever the scientists may say, if we take the supernatural out of life, we leave only the unnatural.
There are plenty of dead scientists I admire, but I can’t think of any living ones. This is probably because it is only in retrospect that one can see who made the important contributions.
Scientists have wonderfully explained the organization of the universe, but that’s really all it claims to do, and I think it does that very successfully.
The facts of science are real enough, and so are the techniques that scientists use, and so are the technologies based on them. But the belief system that governs conventional scientific thinking is an act of faith.
Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: It gives them something to do.
Geeks are a critical driver of America’s innovation ecosystem, from the entrepreneurs launching startups in Silicon Valley to the scientists experimenting in university research labs to the whiz kids building gadgets in their parents’ garages.
Our politicians debate this, but our scientists don’t. A huge majority of climate scientists say climate change is happening. They say we’re causing it and we need to do something about it before it has a terrible effect on all of us.
In the past 20 years scientists from very diverse disciplines – anthropologists, archaeologists, sociologists, psychologists – have all moved to a much more hopeful, optimistic view of human nature.
You know, I get frustrated with our country’s administration, which is really the people who are not acknowledging global warming. I mean, it’s accepted by scientists around the world, scientists in our country and it’s accepted by every country around the world with the exception of the United States.
Despite the value of open data, most labs make no systematic effort to share data with other scientists.
I’m a great believer that scientists should spend as much time as possible explaining, and you do explain in the process of teaching.
Even the best scientists are often insecure and feel the need for recognition.
I was horrified to visit our universities and find that at the Punjab Agriculture University or at the Animal and Husbandry University, we don’t have scientists.
People want to protect the territory that they have, and they’re very threatened by change. That’s not true for all of scientists, but you know, fortunately, the scientific community moves forward in a conservative fashion.
Scientists in different disciplines don’t speak the same language. They publish in different journals. It’s like the United Nations: You come together, but no one speaks the same language, so you need some translators.
In days gone by, scientists would speak solemnly about our solar system‘s ‘habitable zone‘ – a theoretical region extending from Venus to Mars, but perhaps not encompassing either, where a planet would be the right temperature to have liquid water on its surface.
I am not disgruntled. I am frustrated at a lack of leadership. I am frustrated at a lack of urgency to get a head start on developing lifesaving tools for Americans. I’m frustrated at our inability to be heard as scientists. Those things frustrate me.
There are clearly many Egyptian free-thinkers and intellectuals – lots of wonderful Egyptian artists and architects and scientists.
I don’t bill myself as an atheist but as a naturalist. Naturalism is a belief system. A lot of scientists bristle at that. We all have to believe we can find the truth. Evidence is my guide. I rely on observation, experimentation and verification.
Researchers should always consider ethical concerns on scientific research and disclose their data to the public. Scientists also need to discuss issues surrounding their research with those who are concerned.
Developmental scientists like me explore the basic science of learning by designing controlled experiments.
Administrators and scientists are excited by buckyballs for their own sake, and if they turn out to have practical applications, so much the better.
Scientists should not do animal testing if there is any alternative, but subject to that, I would support it on grounds of the medical benefits.
One scientist will interpret data one way, another in another way. One scientist may feel that an experiment is valid, another feels it’s invalid. That’s why scientists have discussions and put forward their opinions in conferences and papers.
I seem to be thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists. However, this is not entirely a matter of joy as if someone returned from physical disability to good physical health.
Of course it would be great to have more scientists in Congress. But what I’d love is to have another Lyndon Johnson in Congress who makes climate change his first priority. We need people who know how to work the system and the institution.
Scientists will eventually stop flailing around with solar power and focus their efforts on harnessing the only truly unlimited source of energy on the planet: stupidity. I predict that in the future, scientists will learn how to convert stupidity into clean fuel.
I believe always you should have a philanthropic heart inside but business way. Because you have to get things done. That is what scientists tell us how to do properly. Business should tell us how to get things done efficiently. And government should have the good environment and the foundations of researching.
RIKEN has attracted numerous outstanding scientists from inside and outside Japan, and these people have achieved creative and outstanding results.
From the point of view of many scientists, gods represent an explanation for the unknown. Scientists are focused on trying to understand the unknown, so there is a fundamental conflict. That said, some scientists find religion useful and perhaps even fulfilling.
Though neglectful of their responsibility to protect science, scientists are increasingly aware of their responsibility to society.
Many scientists think that philosophy has no place, so for me it’s a sad time because the role of reflection, contemplation, meditation, self inquiry, insight, intuition, imagination, creativity, free will, is in a way not given any importance, which is the domain of philosophers.
One important part of scientific training is that scientists learn the boundaries, the safety issues, how to properly deal with and dispose of chemicals and reagents.
Others think it the responsibility of scientists to coerce the rest of society, because they have the power that derives from special knowledge.
As scientists, we keep an open mind, but we have to base our ideas about the past on archaeological evidence.
Fred Hoyle was one of the first scientists to become famous on television and radio. It was because he told a dramatic story about the universe – about how amazing it is and the extraordinary discoveries that astronomers like him were making.
I greatly enjoy reading the biographies of scientists, and when doing so I always hope to learn the secrets of their success. Alas, those secrets generally remain elusive.
The best scientists and explorers have the attributes of kids! They ask question and have a sense of wonder. They have curiosity. ‘Who, what, where, why, when, and how!’ They never stop asking questions, and I never stop asking questions, just like a five year old.
While it is quite reasonable for scientists to be skeptical of new ideas that do not fit within the accepted realm of scientific knowledge, the best science often emerges from situations where results carefully obtained do not fit within the accepted paradigms.
It’s for scientists to lay out the data and lay out what they think, and then it’s for the public to make up its own mind. We don’t live in a priesthood where some small group imposes its views on other people – that’s not the way that science works, and it’s not the way a democratic society should work.
I consistently encounter people in academic settings and scientists and journalists who feel that you can’t say that anyone is wrong in any deep sense about morality, or with regard to what they value in life. I think this doubt about the application of science and reason to questions of value is really quite dangerous.
Scientists dream about doing great things. Engineers do them.
The great Jewish scientists and philosophers of the last few generations – Spinoza, Einstein, Freud, Robert Oppenheimer and others – were natives of Europe and America.
I became famous for the fact that I would break many, many limits. People said, ‘He does all these crazy things.’ But oddly it was a crazy thing only because scientists and climbers said, ‘Everest and the 8,000-meter peaks without oxygen – impossible. Messner is becoming sick in his head.’
There are scientists all around the world looking for the genes responsible for bipolar illness and major depression.
When top scientists and psychologists talk about what’s important to our overall wellbeing and how satisfied we are with our lives, the only thing that they all agree on is that social relationships are probably the single best predictor of our overall happiness.
The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science.
When we think of scientists, we hear a man’s voice.
My feeling is that science is virtually an unexplored ground. It’s very visible – more so all the time – but there’s no fiction that tells us how scientists think, and they really don’t think the way that other people do.
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.
Why have we settled for a medical system that allows cancer to be recast as a chronic and tolerable disease rather than one we should try to prevent? Why do so many scientists at the nation’s drug companies and universities turn their backs on the possibility of prevention?
NASA space scientists have been studying giraffe skin so they can apply what they learn from it to the construction of spacesuits.
This is how many people become artists, musicians, writers, computer programmers, record-holding athletes, scientists… by spending time alone practicing what they love.
Not all SF or fantasy has to inspire new scientists and engineers.
Our ancient yogis and sages were not just medical healers, but systems scientists and systems engineers, who saw the body and the universe as an interconnected engineering system, a system of systems that are governed by fundamental engineering systems principles.
I just think it’s patently absurd for scientists to categorize objects on the basis of the numbers of objects that they can remember.
Students and postdoctoral fellows largely depend on the support of the public sector to finance the training and research that will make them world-renowned scientists.
My heroes were never scientists. They were Graham Greene and Christopher Isherwood, you know, good writers.
It is crucial for scientists to be willing to be wrong; otherwise, you might not do the most important experiments, or you may ignore your most important findings.
I’m a synthesizer. We need to synthesize more the relationships between artists and scientists, and men and women.
The caricature of science is that we hold tight to the theories we have, and shun challenges to them. That’s just not true. In fact, we hold our highest rewards for those scientists who can prove others wrong. And by the way, they are famous in their own lifetimes. We don’t wait until they’re dead.
I am but one member of a vast team made up of many organizations, officials, thousands of scientists, and millions of farmers – mostly small and humble – who for many years have been fighting a quiet, oftentimes losing war on the food production front.
Scientists have established huge numbers of links between particular diseases and snippets of DNA, but in the great majority of cases, this has not yet been translated into treatments that can help cure patients. These treatments will come – tomorrow, or the day after.
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Futurism today is led by science-fiction writers, by sociologists, by historians. Now, I have nothing against them. I’m sure they do great work. But they’re not scientists. They’re clueless.
The notion that scientists are dispassionate – first of all, that’s wrong. Scientists are extremely passionate.
Many of the mainstream agricultural scientists, especially at the agricultural schools, but at all of our major universities, are tied into all sorts of contractual relationships and consulting relationships with the life science companies.
Academic scientists aren’t generally interested in books for the public. So when one comes out, the authors can’t expect much praise from scientists. My goal both as a singer and an instructor is to educate through provocation and entertainment.
Floods, droughts, and natural disasters are a fact of life for farmers, ranchers, and foresters. They have persevered in the past, and they will adapt in the future – with the assistance of the scientists and experts at USDA.
As scientists, we step on the shoulders of science, building on the work that has come before us – aiming to inspire a new generation of young scientists to continue once we are gone.
Some scientists claim – although these claims are contentious – that they can form deadly isomers with simple X-rays and that hafnium can multiply the power of these X-rays to an astounding degree, converting them into gamma rays up to 250 times more potent than the X-rays.
I was socially isolated as a kid. I had friends, but I wasn’t very good at sports and that sort of thing so I became quite comfortable being by myself, exploring. The world was my private playground, and in it, I was supreme. Darwin, Faraday, Huxley and other great scientists were my companions.
Science fiction has been an inspiration to generations of scientists and engineers, and the film series ‘Star Wars‘ is no exception.
The scientists who do climate research understand that much of the ever increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 must be attributed to burning those fossil fuels to produce the energy that drives industrialization.
It is extraordinary the extent to which Darwin’s insights not only changed his contemporaries’ view of the world but also continue to be a source of great intellectual stimulation for scientists and nonscientists alike.
The AEC scientists were so narrowly focused on arming the United States for nuclear war that they failed to perceive facts – even widely known ones – that were outside their limited field of vision.
It’s the subconcussive hits, the constant bam, bam, bam that linemen like Suh give and receive. Those are the hits scientists say cause the lasting damage to the brain, the kind of injuries that made guys like Mike Webster, Terry Long, and so many others go crazy. The subconcussive hits – every single play.
All the scientists and technologists should work in appropriate region, specifically the rural technologies, to transform Indian rural sector.
Luckily, unreasonable expectations go hand in hand with naive young scientists. The more naive the better – otherwise we would never have the audacity to try and build a 22,000-mile-high space elevator or some sprawling underwater hotel.
A full understanding of what happens in our everyday lives needs to take into account what happened at the Big Bang. And not only is that intrinsically interesting and just kind of cool to think about, but it’s also a mystery that is not given much attention by working scientists; it’s a little bit underappreciated.
We must accept what science tells us, that man was born from the earth. But, more logical than the scientists who lecture us, we must carry this lesson to its conclusion: that is to say, accept that man was born entirely from the world – not only his flesh and bones but his incredible power of thought.
In Massachusetts, scientists have created the first human clone. The bad thing is that in thirty years, the clone will still be depressed because the Boston Red Sox will still have not won a World Series.
Any time scientists disagree, it’s because we have insufficient data. Then we can agree on what kind of data to get; we get the data; and the data solves the problem. Either I’m right, or you’re right, or we’re both wrong. And we move on. That kind of conflict resolution does not exist in politics or religion.
The mystique associated with the bomb, the role that scientists played in it, and its general importance could not fail to impress even a six-year old.
Scientists need to be prepared to engage, and the best people to engage with are students, ideally from primary school because there’s no question that their capacity to work out complex things is extremely good.
Scientists tend to come in two stripes: those who have tremendous appetite and aptitude for the details, and those who illuminate the big picture. Sagan was definitely in the latter category, and he was profoundly good at it. He made connections that others did not have the intellectual breadth or courage to make.
For Christian faith not to be idle in the world, the work of doctors and garbage collectors, business executives and artists, stay-at-home moms or dads and scientists needs to be inserted into God’s story with the world. That story needs to provide the most basic rules by which the game in all these spheres is played.
Theories of love are found in the works of scientists, philosophers, and theologians.
Consciousness, rather than being an epiphenomenon of matter, is actually the source of matter. It differentiates into space time, energy, information, and matter. Even though this view is an ancient view, an ancient world view, it is now finding some resonance amongst a few scientists.
As it turns out, social scientists have established only one fact about single women’s mental health: employment improves it.
The great myth that many social scientists want to encourage is that there is an incompatibility between modern technology and traditional religion. This is absolute nonsense. If anything, it’s the reverse.
I wish there would be more movies about scientists.
Americans have long trusted the views of Democrats on the environment, the economy, education, and health care, but national security is the one matter about which Republicans have maintained what political scientists call ‘issue ownership.’
One of the reasons I like working with schools is to try to convince women that they can be scientists and that science can be fun.
If every sector of business and society will be driven by software – how does that get enabled? By highly-paid computer scientists funded by risk capital in Silicon Valley? Or by lots of engineers who can build it themselves?
The most important advances, the qualitative leaps, are the least predictable. Not even the best scientists predicted the impact of nuclear physics, and everyday consumer items such as the iPhone would have seemed magic back in the 1950s.
As a scientist, of course, we have to believe there is no supernatural. There are only natural entities in the universe. And those are the things that we study as natural scientists.
Scientists surely have a special responsibility. It is their ideas that form the basis of new technology. They should not be indifferent to the fruits of their ideas. They should forgo experiments that are risky or unethical.
There are many religious points of view where the conservation of the world is just as important as it is to scientists.
I know one lab that studies nicotine receptors and all the scientists are smokers, and another lab that studies impulse control and they’re all overweight.
A number of scientists with greatly different backgrounds can come up with completely different assessments. The discussions or controversies are endless. Once a year, we try to bring the most important discoverers together to exchange their experiences and knowledge.
If you look at the scientists who really make a difference, they think boldly. They’re not afraid to question what they see.
Latino patriots have served and fought in every war. They are artists, dancers, singers, poets and journalists, teachers and scientists. More and more Latinos are becoming entrepreneurs and businesspeople, contributing to the wealth and economic well-being of the nation.
It makes sense for social scientists to become more involved in policy because many of society’s most challenging problems are, in essence, behavioral.
My kind of, like, life goal is to help train students to be good people as well as good scientists. That would be my dream.
As the Earth continues to slow, leap seconds will grow more common. Eventually we will need one every year, and then even more. Scientists could have avoided these awkward skips by choosing instead to adjust the duration of the second itself. Who would notice? That is what they did, in fact, until 1955.
Our assessment of socio-economic worth is largely a sham. We scientists should not lend ourselves to it – though we routinely do. We should, instead, insist on applying the criterion of quality.
Novelists should be like scientists, dissecting the cadaver.
Almost half our representatives in Washington apparently know more about science than our scientists. Or they pretend to, because big corporations give them a lot of money to make sure they can keep doing the destructive things that they do.
Government and other scientists have identified hundreds of chemicals that are linked to diseases in small concentrations and that are unregulated in drinking water or policed at limits that still pose serious risks.
Strangely enough, politics may just be the one realm in which having kids imposes no penalty on women. Kids are practically a necessity. For scientists, or Supreme Court justices, or chief executives, or the woman who wants to learn to fly F-l8s off an aircraft carrier, it works differently.
I enjoy very much communication. I think that scientists need to communicate.
The mind of the polyglot is a very particular thing, and scientists are only beginning to look closely at how acquiring a second language influences learning, behavior and the very structure of the brain itself.
Scientists and creationists are always at odds, of course.
When I was a teenager, science meshed with my developing ideals – such as the challenge to authority that was central to punk rock. In science, anyone from any walk of life could make a discovery that would overturn prevailing hypotheses. And that was a cause for celebration among scientists.
Well into the 20th century, scholars viewed economic advances as resulting from commercial innovations enabled by the discoveries of scientists – discoveries that come from outside the economy and out of the blue.
Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money.
I believe scientists have a duty to share the excitement and pleasure of their work with the general public, and I enjoy the challenge of presenting difficult ideas in an understandable way.
Happy indeed is the scientist who not only has the pleasures which I have enumerated, but who also wins the recognition of fellow scientists and of the mankind which ultimately benefits from his endeavors.
We must give scientists the opportunity through funding and time to pursue curiosity-based, long-term, basic-science research.
But scientists on both sides of the iron curtain played a very significant role in maintaining the momentum of the nuclear arms race throughout the four decades of the Cold War.
What the poor, the weak, and the inarticulate desperately require is power, organization, and a sense of identity and purpose, not rarefied advice of political scientists.
I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.
I must have interviewed 600 or 700 scientists all around the world.
Scientists have always thought that because mammoths roamed such a huge territory – from Western Europe to Central North America – that North American woolly mammoths were a sideshow of no particular significance to the evolution of the species.
Scientists care deeply about their place in that culture, and their contribution to it.
One of the great problems of the world today is undoubtedly this problem of not being able to talk to scientists, because we don’t understand science; they can’t talk to us because they don’t understand anything else, poor dears.
I felt the question of the afterlife was the black hole of the personal universe: something for which substantial proof of existence had been offered but which had not yet been explored in the proper way by scientists and philosophers.
Britain has trend-setting fashion, ground-breaking scientists, and innovative technology companies. It is also a welcome home for investors.
I don’t think it would be a good idea for scientists to have more political power. Scientists as a group are more inclined to try to derive an ought from an is, than the population at large.
Scientists have shown that pigs are capable of playing simple video games, learning from each other, and even learning names.
We are constantly nothing but a bunch of energy being processed. Into this whirlpool, the more complex the system, the more energy it requires to hold it together. Therefore, the more complex – the scientists call it ‘coherent‘ – the more fluctuations are possible.
Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The scientists who attack mainstream religion, rather than striving for peaceful coexistence with it, damage science, and also weaken the fight against fundamentalism.
A century ago the Spanish flu confounded scientists and devastated whole regions, but while today’s society has air travel and an enormous, heterogeneous population, we also have antibiotics, fantastic communication networks and, perhaps most crucially, more data than ever.
The way to solve problems in the world is to become scientists and technologists and build things that haven‘t been built before and discover things that people really don’t know about.
When the first American steps on the red dust of Mars, it’s going to be because of computer scientists.
Scientists – who prefer explanations subject to laboratory tests – figure that everything we see today was as inevitable as wrinkles, once the Big Bang established physics. Stars and planets were cooked up as huge clouds of matter collapsed and coalesced.
I would not necessarily say that scientists and artists need to collaborate with one another, but it would be helpful for them to talk to one another to, perhaps, give rise to specific ideas that may or may not be carried out together.
You hear a lot of scientists say the same thing. It doesn’t have to be a big thing because the thing about being a scientist is even the little things are big things to us.
Nuclear scientists lost their innocence when we used the atom bomb for the very first time. So we could argue computer scientists lost their innocence in 2009 when we started using malware as an offensive attack weapon.
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.
At Berkeley I had my first encounter with real professional scientists.
Many of my friends are scientists.
The age of the Earth is a hotly debated issue among evangelicals. Old Earthers believe, like most scientists, that the universe is billions of years old. Young Earthers measure the age of the universe in terms of thousands of years.
Most kids are not dreaming of being programmers, scientists or engineers.
I do think that the standard media is controlled by the conventional wisdom about global warming. We’ve come to believe – from reading a lot of articles and talking to a lot of scientists – that there’s another side to be heard.
Those few people who do respond to the dire conditions of the future – journalists, environmentalists, behavioral scientists – tend not to be powerful.
A group of scientists wanted to find the most effective mosquito repellents. So they tested 10 different substances, including campout standbys like DEET, as well as a random choice: Victoria’s Secret perfume Bombshell. Turns out the perfume is almost as good as DEET.
I’ve always been fascinated by real scientists – Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and so many others – how they’ve come up with solutions to very complicated problems that nobody else can seem to figure out.
Scientists have suggested that some whale deaths could be a result of marine noise, often a result of military activity, offshore drilling or exploration, which can disorient the animals and send them in the wrong direction, possibly toward beaches where they get stuck instead of into the deeper ocean.
Getting a team of scientists on Mars could be transformative.
Scientists under all forms of government must be able to participate fully in international efforts.
Close interaction with farmers and scientists can expose the chef to new flavours that can be used to delight diners.
The first thing to make clear is that scientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact co-operating as members of a closely knit organization.
I think philosophers can do things akin to theoretical scientists, in that, having read about empirical data, they too can think of what hypotheses and theories might account for that data. So there’s a continuity between philosophy and science in that way.
In the big experiments, Atlas and CMS, we have something like 3,000 scientists each, and over 60 nationalities.
We must nurture creative scientists in an environment that encourages interactions and collaborations across different fields, and support research free from weighty bureaucracies.
I spend a lot of time talking to other scientists and writing to other scientists.
The vast majority of terrestrial species are in fact microbes, and scientists have only begun scratching the surface of the microbial realm. It is entirely possible that examples of life as we don’t know it have so far been overlooked.
Graffiti writers were the most interesting people in hip hop. They were the mad scientists, the mad geniuses, the weird ones.
Few scientists acquainted with the chemistry of biological systems at the molecular level can avoid being inspired.
Even today, I frequently meet scientists who, outside their own narrow discipline, are superstitious.
My friends are all geeks. And many of them are scientists who love playing outside as much as I do.
If scientists can’t communicate with the public, with policy makers, with one another, the future is going to be held back. We’re not going to have the future that we could have.
It is inexcusable for scientists to torture animals; let them make their experiments on journalists and politicians.
There’s a preponderance of scientists and engineers among China’s rulers. New President Xi Jinping was trained as a chemical engineer. His predecessor, Hu Jintao, earned a degree in hydraulic engineering. His predecessor, Jiang Zemin, held a degree in electrical engineering.
Individual scientists like myself – and many more conspicuous – pointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers.
Scientists tend to build a reputation on refuting the theories of those who have gone before. Yet, whatever we hypothesize, observe, measure or record about the natural world, it leaves more unanswered questions.
To make computer science more attractive to women, we might help young women change how they think about themselves and what’s expected of them. But we might also diversify the images of scientists they see in the media, along with the decor in the classrooms and offices in which they might want to study or work.
I am not a scientist. I am, rather, an impresario of scientists.
I guess it’s inevitable that I would become somebody who would write about scientists.
If I’m writing, I’ll say something metaphorical or approximate, whereas scientists are very precise.
I don’t know what country’s willing to export – for free – the computer scientists, engineers, doctors. It’s hard to me to understand.
Scientists tend to be skeptical, but the weakness of the community of science is that it tends to move into preformed establishment modes that say this is the only way of doing science, the only valid view.
Traditionally, scientists have treated the laws of physics as simply ‘given,’ elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth, and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science.
Research in any domain of science today requires specialized training to build up knowledge and clinical competence. To make major breakthroughs, we need people with expertise who are engaged in sustained research over a long period of time – in a word, scientists.
Startups allow technologists and scientists to take risks and change plans in a way that would be frowned upon in a big company. Having said that, big companies will play a key role in certain areas and in partnerships with little companies. Each has its strengths.
If you look at all the serious scientists in the world, there is no big disagreement on the basics of this… it would be absolute lunacy to act as if climate change is not occurring.
Psychologists really aim to be scientists, white-coat stuff, with elaborate statistics, running experiments.
I love to watch how scientists’ minds work.
Scientists and philosophers tend to treat knowledge, imagination and love as if they were all very separate parts of human nature. But when it comes to children, all three are deeply entwined. Children learn the truth by imagining all the ways the world could be, and testing those possibilities.
Kids are natural scientists.
I feel blessed to be here representing our country and carrying out th research of scientists around the world… I hope you could feel the positive energy that beamed to the whole planet as we glided over.
Now, that is in a way also what scientists are trying to do they’re trying to get people to see that the world can be represented in an alternative way and that it’s right.
I have some friends, colleagues here at the Karolinska Institute and even in the United States and many other countries too, because we are working together as scientists.
Scientists learn about the world in three ways: They analyze statistical patterns in the data, they do experiments, and they learn from the data and ideas of other scientists. The recent studies show that children also learn in these ways.
There’s absolutely no reason at all that physicians, scientists, shouldn’t be involved in things that affect all of us.
People tend to compartmentalize themselves into IT people, and movie star people, and scientists, but when we share our perspectives about nature, we find a common denominator.
It has only been within my lifetime that asteroids have been considered a credible threat to our planet. And since then, there’s been a focused effort underway to discover and catalog these objects. I am lucky enough to be part of this effort. I’m part of a team of scientists that use NASA’s NEOWISE telescope.
I would support peaceful co-existence between religion and science because they concern different domains. Anyone who takes theology seriously knows that it’s not a matter of using it to explain things that scientists are mystified by.
Some of the most important discoveries that scientists have made were not what they were seeking at the time.
Computer scientists have built a set of massive DNS databases, which provide fragmentary histories of communications flows, in part to create an archive of malware: a kind of catalog of the tricks bad actors have tried to pull, which often involve masquerading as legitimate actors.
There are a lot of scientists or other people who can be very skeptical or rational within their field, but they may well not do that in other aspects of their lives, when it comes to things like religion, or what have you. People have this amazing gift for being selective with their curiosity and skepticism.
One thing scientists do is to find order among a large number of facts, and one way to do that across fields as diverse as biology, geology, physics and astronomy is through classification.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Job’s forthright indictment of the injustice of this world is surely right. The ways of the world are weird and much more unpredictable than either scientists or theologians generally make things look.
Imagine life without any algorithms at all, you wouldn’t be able to do anything. This is already completely encompassing. We have a habit of over-trusting what mathematics or computer scientists tell us to do, without questioning it, too much faith in the magical power of analysis.
A National Database on Autism Research is fostering sharing of data and collaborations. Scientists are also making great strides at the interface of biology and engineering with new technologies that are laying the groundwork for future advances.
Biology is far from understanding exactly how a single cell develops into a baby, but research suggests that human development can ultimately be explained in terms of biochemistry and molecular biology. Most scientists would make a similar statement about evolution.
Scientists are being portrayed by much of the power structure in politics and business as having a vested interest – that they’re just out to get more grant money by exaggerating the threats.
That was the first major social sciences conference at which social scientists from all cultures wanted to reach a consensus on whether we can continue to pursue a national course in the social sciences or whether we need a cosmopolitan path that also connects us in a new way.
You could have ten scientists in this room. You could ask them all: ‘Who’s religious?’ About three to four will put their hands up.
I love storytelling, I love being a visual person, and it just made perfect sense to be an underwater photographer and explore the ocean and work with scientists.
If scientists could communicate more in their own voices – in a familiar tone, with a less specialized vocabulary – would a wide range of people understand them better? Would their work be better understood by the general public, policy-makers, funders, and, even in some cases, other scientists?
Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.
I am optimistic globally. So many scientists are working frantically on the reparation of our planet.
I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organised ignorance.
When I first started writing, I didn’t write about scientists at all. I think I wanted a break from that part of my world.
The scientists do not get enough help, enough encouragement, to change their field from time to time because the pressure is too high or is to perform something. And once you start in a new field, you are a nobody to start with, you see.
About 3 million IVF babies have been born since Louise Brown‘s birth in 1978. Bizarrely, when this life-giving treatment was first considered, it was massively controversial. A storm of vitriolic protest came from many religious leaders, journalists, politicians, regrettably even other scientists and doctors.
Far too many scientists, including my good friend Richard Dawkins, present science as the truth and present it as factually correct. And actually, of course, that clearly isn’t true.
The frontier orbital approach was further developed in various directions by my own group and many other scientists, both theoretical and experimental.
People don’t generally listen to scientists much.
