A theory should not attempt to explain all the facts, because some of the facts are wrong
Interpretation
Scientific theories should be flexible and not rigidly account for every observation, especially when some observations may be incorrect.
Francis Crick emphasizes that while developing a scientific theory, it is important to recognize that not all observed facts are trustworthy or accurate. Therefore, a good theory should accommodate the possibility of errors in observations rather than trying to explain every detail, as doing so can lead to flawed conclusions and misguided scientific understanding.
In practice
In a discussion about the scientific method, one might use this quote to illustrate the importance of skepticism in research.
One can say, looking at the papers in this symposium, that the elucidation of the genetic code is indeed a great achievement. It is, in a sense, the key to molecular biology because it shows how the great polymer languages, the nucleic acid language and the protein language, are linked together.
Exact knowledge is the enemy of vitalism.
It is essential to understand our brains in some detail if we are to assess correctly our place in this vast and complicated universe we see all around us.
To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there.
It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.
In the fullness of time, educated people will believe there is no soul independent of the body, and hence no life after death.
A wonderful area for speculative academic work is the unknowable. These days religious subjects are in disfavor, but there are still plenty of good topics. The nature of consciousness, the workings of the brain, the origin of aggression, the origin of language, the origin of life on earth, SETI and life on other worlds...this is all great stuff. Wonderful stuff. You can argue it interminably. But it can't be contradicted, because nobody knows the answer to any of these topics.
I was an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises. A message would go round the department: 'Please give a list of your recent publications.' And I would send back a statement: 'None.'
I do not want to drive across a bridge designed by an engineer who believed the numbers in structural stress models are relative truths.
When I began in 1960, individuality wasn't an accepted thing to look for; it was about species-specific behaviour. But animal behaviour is not hard science. There's room for intuition.
Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy.
I am a futurist, projecting trends in science into the next decades and century, but ironically my two daughters - one is a neuroscientist and the other is a pastry chef - tell me that my taste in music is positively prehistoric.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.