A Quote by John Charles Polanyi
Nothing is more irredeemably irrelevant than bad science.
Related Quotes
We tend to paint the past only in extremes, as having been either categorically better than the present or irredeemably bad.
'Science in itself' is nothing, for it exists only in the human beings who are its bearers. 'Science for its own sake' usually means nothing more than science for the sake of the people who happen to be pursuing it.
Nothing in the world causes more problems than concepts of ethnic virtue. It's irrelevant.
A great swindle of our time is the assumption that science has made religion obsolete. All science has damaged is the story of Adam and Eve and the story of Jonah and the Whale. Everything else holds up pretty well, particularly lessons about fairness and gentleness. People who find those lessons irrelevant in the twentieth century are simply using science as an excuse for greed and harshness. Science has nothing to do with it, friends.
Nothing is irredeemably ugly but sin.
The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Nothing has done more to render modern economic theory a sterile and irrelevant exercise in autoeroticism than its practitioners’ obsession with mathematical, general-equilibrium models.
Nothing matters but the facts. Without them, the science of criminal investigation is nothing more than a guessing game.
It's just science fiction so it's allowed to be silly, and childish, and stupid. It's just science fiction, so it doesn't have to make sense. It's just science fiction, so you must ask nothing more of it than loud noises and flashing lights.
Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain.
Debunking bad science should be constant obligation of the science community, even if it takes time away from serious research or seems to be a losing battle. One takes comfort from the fact there is no Gresham's laws in science. In the long run, good science drives out bad.
Ultimately, bridging the practice of forensic science and the public's need for story may be difficult. We crave narrative, order from chaos, a mystery solved, good guys winning out over the bad ones. But science, and forensic science, should be more neutral and, thus, more nuanced.
Science is like society and trade, in resting at bottom upon a basis of faith. There are some things here, too, that we can not prove, otherwise there would be nothing we can prove. Science is busy with the hither-end of things, not the thither-end. It is a mistake to contrast religion and science in this respect, and to think of religion as taking everything for granted, and science as doing only clean work, and having all the loose ends gathered up and tucked in. We never reach the roots of things in science more than in religion.
Of everything that man erects and builds in his urge for living nothing is in my eyes better and more valuable than bridges. They are more important than houses, more sacred than shrines. Belonging to everyone and being equal to everyone, useful, always built with a sense, on the spot where most human needs are crossing, they are more durable than other buildings and they do not serve for anything secret or bad.
Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.
It is necessary to guard ourselves from thinking that the practice of the scientific method enlarges the powers of the human mind. Nothing is more flatly contradicted by experience than the belief that a man distinguished in one or even more departments of science, is more likely to think sensibly about ordinary affairs than anyone else.
Related Authors
Alexander Shulgin Quotes
American
Chemist
Gilbert N. Lewis Quotes
American
Chemist
Glenn T. Seaborg Quotes
American
Chemist
Henry Edward Armstrong Quotes
British
Chemist
Ilya Prigogine Quotes
Roman
Chemist
Joel Henry Hildebrand Quotes
American
Chemist
John Gofman Quotes
American
Chemist
John William Draper Quotes
American
Chemist
Jons Jacob Berzelius Quotes
Swedish
Chemist
Justus von Liebig Quotes
German
Chemist
Peter Atkins Quotes
English
Chemist
Robert Bunsen Quotes
German
Chemist
William Crookes Quotes
British
Chemist
Willis R. Whitney Quotes
American
Chemist
Wolfgang Ostwald Quotes
German
Chemist