A Quote by Alexandra Elbakyan

Scientific knowledge belongs to humanity. — © Alexandra Elbakyan
Scientific knowledge belongs to humanity.
Humanity must accept that the food, the raw materials, the energy, the scientific knowledge and so on, belongs to everybody, that it is given by Divine providence for all peoples, the rich nations and what are called the developing nations. No one has the right to corner the goods of the world as is done today, whether that be oil or food or any of the things that we think are so important.
There are no a priori obstacles to the scientific knowledge of the mind, but the scientific knowledge of the mind is not all the knowledge of the mind that there is. This is not an objection to science, it is just a distinction between different kinds of knowledge.
Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.
If the world kept a journal, many of the entries would be conversations concerning the advancement of scientific knowledge and its importance to humanity. I offer the following conversation as an added entry: "And what is as important as knowledge?" asked the mind. "Caring," answered the heart.
I am mainly concerned with unqualified knowledge, by contrast with the varieties of expert knowledge: scientific knowledge of various sorts, legal knowledge, medically expert knowledge, and so on.
The fact that these scientific theories have a fine track record of successful prediction and explanation speaks for itself. (Which is not to say that I don't directly discuss the work of those philosophers who would disagree.) But even if we grant this, many will argue that scientific knowledge in humans, and, indeed, reflective knowledge in general, is quite different in kind from the knowledge we see in other animals.
The old scientific ideal of episteme - of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge - has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever.
In the case of some people, not even if we had the most accurate scientific knowledge, would it be easy to persuade them were we to address them through the medium of that knowledge; for a scientific discourse, it is the privilege of education to appreciate, and it is impossible that this should extend to the multitude.
On the question of the world as a whole, science founders. For scientific knowledge the world lies in fragments, the more so the more precise our scientific knowledge becomes.
Knowledge is now accepted as the best we humans can do at the moment, but with the hope that we will turn out to be wrong - and thus to advance our knowledge. What's happening to networked knowledge seems to make it much closer to the scientific idea of what knowledge is.
World belongs to humanity, not this leader, that leader or that king or prince or religious leader. World belongs to humanity.
Ignorance is the evil - knowledge will be the remedy. Knowledge not of what sort of beings we shall be hereafter, or what is beyond the skies, but a knowledge pertaining to terra firma, and we may have all the power, goodness and love that we have been taught belongs to God himself.
Scepticism and refusal of authority is at the heart of scientific endeavour. Scientific knowledge dictates economic possibilities
All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy.
More than any other product of human scientific culture scientific knowledge is the collective property of all mankind.
If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case, get it out of the science classroom and send it back to church, where it belongs.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!