Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime.
Jacob BronowskiRead
Science is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not. That needs more courage than we might think.
Interpretation
Science requires courage to embrace effective ideas and discard those that fail.
In this quote, Jacob Bronowski emphasizes the fundamental aspect of science as not merely a collection of facts but a rigorous process of determining what works based on evidence. He highlights that the courage to challenge established beliefs and acknowledge failures is essential for the advancement of knowledge, suggesting that this bravery is often underestimated.
In practice
In a lecture on scientific methodology, you might say, 'As Jacob Bronowski pointed out, science is about the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not.'
Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime.
There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy.
To me the most interesting thing about man is that he is an animal who practices art and science and in every known society practices both together.
A man becomes creative, whether he is an artist or scientist, when he finds a new unity in the variety of nature. He does so by finding a likeness between things which were not thought alike before.
The values by which we are to survive are not rules for just and unjust conduct, but are those deeper illuminations in whose light justice and injustice, good and evil, means and ends are seen in fearful sharpness of outline.
The basis for poetry and scientific discovery is the ability to comprehend the unlike in the like and the like in the unlike.
If Watson and I had not discovered the [DNA] structure, instead of being revealed with a flourish it would have trickled out and that its impact would have been far less. For this sort of reason Stent had argued that a scientific discovery is more akin to a work of art than is generally admitted. Style, he argues, is as important as content. I am not completely convinced by this argument, at least in this case.
The sciences throw an inexpressible grace over our compositions, even where they are not immediately concerned; as their effects are discernible where we least expect to find them.
When it comes to the things that people really want in science fiction - like space travel - the simplest things end up causing them not to happen. Humans are 100-pound bags of water, built to live on Earth.
When it comes to how neuroscience could help the wider public, the worst thing is when we make advances in, say, mindfulness, and then decide that everybody can potentially think their way to curing themselves or develop their own psycho-neuro-immune mechanisms for boosting cancer defenses.
But nature did not deem it her business to make the discovery of her laws easy for us.
You can't tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can't build a wall around the ice sheets.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.