Best 423 quotes in «scientist quotes» category

The scientist is motivated primarily by curiosity and a desire for truth.

The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.

The scientists at CERN were actually surprised that people commented on this. Reportedly Fabiola Gianotti, the coordinator of the CERN program to find the Higgs Boson, was asked why she had selected Comic Sans. She simply said, "Because I like it.

The scientist rigorously defends his right to be ignorant of almost everything except his specialty.

The scientist should treasure the riddles he can't solve, not explain them away at the outset.

The scientists split the atom; now the atom is splitting us.

The scientist keeps the romantic honest, and the romantic keeps the scientist human.

The State is not, as many political scientists would make it, an inanimate thing; it consists of people, human beings, each of whom operates under an inner compulsion to get the most out of life with the least expenditure of labor.

The studio and road both have their charms. The studio allows me to be a mad scientist and the tour lets me feel like James Bond.

The villagers seldom leave the village; many scientists have limited and poorly cultivated minds apart from their specialty.

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.

Those [scientists] who dislike entertaining contradictory thoughts are unlikely to enrich their science with new ideas.

Tilth is something every farmer can recognize but no scientist can measure.

Three stages of truth for scientists: It's not true. If it is true, it's not very important. We knew it all along.

We are driven by the usual insatiable curiosity of the scientist, and our work is a delightful game.

Time for the FUTURE!! We will see young scientists in the future writing D++ (DNA Code).

Using e-mail, I can communicate with scientists all over the world.

Virtually every scientist now concedes that universe and time itself had beginning. So, whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe must have had a cause.

To describe externals, you become a scientist. To describe experience, you become an artist.

Touch a scientist and you touch a child.

Two polar groups: at one pole we have the literary intellectuals, at the other scientists, and as the most representative, the physical scientists. Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension.

Unscientific man is beset by a deplorable desire to have been right. The scientist is distinguished by a desire to be right.

We agreed with him in principal - we were little scientists, born and bred. But children robbed of love will dwell on magic.

We are concerned, not with the development of just one capacity, such as that of a mathematician, or a scientist, or a musician, but with the total development of the student as a human being.

We are in the ordinary position of scientists of having to be content with piecemeal improvements: we can make several things clearer, but we cannot make anything clear.

We look down on our scientists if they engage in outside consultation. We implicitly promote the ivory tower.

We have to understand ourselves as a part of the narrative of evolution. And evolution never stops. The notion that human evolution at some point stopped and "history" took over is absurd, though it is widespread among various social scientists and humanists.

We live in a democracy and I do not understand why highly respected scientists from top international branches are not able express themselves!

We journalists... are also extremely impressed with scientists, and we will, frankly, print just about any wacky thing they tell us, especially if it involves outer space.

We're right next to Mile High Stadium. I'm no rocket scientist, but...uh...(smile).

We've got to set up in our own community our scientists and scholars that can check what is going into our people.

We should listen to both philosophers and scientists, because the philosophical contribution is different from the scientific contribution, and both of them are worthwhile.

What scientists are attached to is journeys into the unknown and discovering things that are completely unexpected and baffling and surprising.

We were arguing about what was good to deal with making education fairer, diverse and more American. We were not arguing about where black scientists get a good education.

Whatever the scientists may say, if we take the supernatural out of life, we leave only the unnatural.

What has happened over the years is that scientists have now developed AIDS therapeutic capabilities, as well as prevention, and we've linked prevention and treatment in a way that if you fast-forward 30 years form '88 to now, we can say without hyperbole that we have the tools, if implemented the way they could be implemented, to theoretically, essentially end the epidemic as we know it now.

while the scientist sees everything that happens in one point of space, the poet feels everything that happens in one point of time.

What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying.

What we need to do is to humanize the scientist and simonize the humanist.

What we face in Canada are multiple overlapping crises. We have the climate crisis, which is screaming down on us - all of the predictions are coming true even faster than the scientists thought. We have the inequality crisis, where the Panama Papers are a great reminder that the one per cent have actually created their own economy. We still have the crisis of child poverty, which has never been dealt with despite decades of concerned words from politicians.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

When I met scientists, I found them to be as various as any other group of people.

When I was a kid I always wanted to be a mad scientist. I don't know... a regular scientist just was no one.

While traditional BI is interested in the 'what and the where,' data scientists are interested in the 'how and why'.

You should prefer a good scientist without literary abilities than a literate one without scientific skills

You know very well that unless you're a scientist, it's much more important for a theory to be shapely, than for it to be true.

Why is it apparently the philosopher who is expected to be "easier" and not some scientist or other who is even more inaccessible to the same readers?

Yet again, unscientific claims were being circulated broadly, but the scientists' refutation of them was published where only fellow scientists would see it.

You going to be a scientist when you grow up?” That sort of question deserved a blank stare, which it got.

Your job as a scientist is to figure out how you're fooling yourself.