That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting.
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
Interpretation
What this quote means
This quote implies that all sciences ultimately stem from physics, while some areas are merely about gathering data without deeper understanding.
Ernest Rutherford's quote suggests a hierarchy within the scientific disciplines, arguing that true science revolves around the principles of physics. It contrasts active scientific inquiry with merely collecting facts or data, implying that gathering information without interpretation or underlying principles does not contribute to true scientific understanding. This reflects the importance of fundamental theories that connect different branches of science.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
In a lecture on the importance of core scientific principles.
More from Ernest Rutherford
All quotes βThe energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
I am a great believer in the simplicity of things and as you probably know I am inclined to hang on to broad & simple ideas like grim death until evidence is too strong for my tenacity.
Now I know what the atom looks like.
If your result needs a statistician then you should design a better experiment.
Should a young scientist working with me come to me after two years of such work and ask me what to do next, I would advise him to get out of science. After two years of work, if a man does not know what to do next, he will never make a real scientist.
Similar quotes
I can easily conceive, most Holy Father, that as soon as some people learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected.
There may be many Big Bangs that happened at various and far-flung locations, each creating its own swelling, spatial expanse, each creating a universe - our universe being the result of only one of those Big Bangs.
Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.
Every usage, no matter how bizarre or nonstandard, fascinates me, as it tells me something about the way language is evolving.
The science of systematics has long been affected by profound philosophical preconceptions, which have been all the more influential for being usually covert, even subconscious.
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.