A Quote by Richard P. Feynman

Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion — © Richard P. Feynman
Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion
The implication was that if you had any skepticism whatsoever, you were anti-science. I think there's a difference between having skepticism about science and having skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry.
Skepticism is not a position; skepticism is an approach to claims, in the same way that science is not a subject but a method.
(Technology reliability) x (Human reliability) = (System reliability)
Science blogs bore me. When everyone is an expert, no one is an expert.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. Football is four 15-minute quarters. Plus timeouts and commercials.
while the executive should give every possible value to the information of the specialist, no executive should abdicate thinking on any subject because of the expert. The expert's information or opinion should not be allowed automatically to become a decision. On the other hand, full recognition should be given to the part the expert plays in decision making.
The knowledge of the individual citizen is of less value than the knowledge of science. The former is the opinion of individuals. It is merely subjective and is excluded from policies. The latter is objective - defined by science and promulgated by expert spokesmen. This objective knowledge is viewed as a commodity which can be refined... and fed into a process, now called decision-making. This new mythology of governance by the manipulation of knowledge-stock inevitably erodes reliance on government by people.
I am not an expert on Chinese science fiction. I probably know more than anyone else in the West, but that doesn't actually mean I am an expert.
Computer science education cannot make anybody an expert programmer any more than studying brushes and pigment can make somebody an expert painter.
Reliability engineers often assume that reliability and safety are synonymous, but this assumption is true only in special cases.
Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism--and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.
Creationists argue that natural selection is only a negative process, and therefore cannot create anything. Chopra argues that skepticism is only a negative process, and therefore does not lead to knowledge. Both are wrong for the same reasons. They ignore the generation of diversity and new ideas upon which natural selection and skepticism acts. Weeding out the unfit is critical to both - natural selection allows evolution to proceed, and skepticism allows science to advance.
Government, in the last analysis, is organized opinion. Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government.
You know, the very strength of science is that it keeps us from the errors of mythos, from getting committed to a set of memes that we adopt because of congruence with what we think we know. Science demands skepticism.
Has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? . . . No other human institution comes close.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!