A great power imposes the obligation of exercising restraint, and we did not live up to this obligation. I think this affected many of the scientists in a subtle sense, and it diminished their desire to continue to work on the bomb.
Leo SzilardRead
A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.
Interpretation
A scientist prioritizes understanding over convincing others during discussions.
In scientific discourse, the primary goal should not be to win arguments or sway opinions, but rather to foster clarity on concepts and findings. This emphasizes the value of communication in science, where the focus is on ensuring that everyone involved has a clear understanding of the subject matter, allowing for productive dialogue and collaboration.
In practice
In a research paper presentation where the intent is to explain findings to peers.
A great power imposes the obligation of exercising restraint, and we did not live up to this obligation. I think this affected many of the scientists in a subtle sense, and it diminished their desire to continue to work on the bomb.
I have been asked whether I would agree that the tragedy of the scientist is that he is able to bring about great advances in our knowledge, which mankind may then proceed to use for purposes of destruction. My answer is that this is not the tragedy of the scientist; it is the tragedy of mankind.
Those individuals who give moral considerations a much greater weight than considerations of expediency represent a comparatively small minority, five percent of the people perhaps. But, In spite of their numerical inferiority, they play a major role in our society because theirs is the voice of the conscience of society.
Even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is equal to one genius, is it necessary to go a further step and hold that two morons are better than one genius?
If one knows only what one is told, one does not know enough to be able to arrive at a well-balanced decision.
I like mathematics because it is not human and has nothing particular to do with this planet or with the whole accidental universe - because, like Spinoza's God, it won't love us in return.
Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.
I would only once have the opportunity to let my scientific career encompass a path from the double helix to the three billion steps of the human genome.
Science is often misrepresented as "the body of knowledge acquired by performing replicated controlled experiments in the laboratory." Actually, science is something broader: the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the world.
Science should be the most fun job on the planet. You get to ask questions about the world around you and go out and seek the answers. Not to have fun doing that is crazy.
No one may have the guts to say this, but if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.