Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.

Scientists talk about dark matter, the invisible, mysterious substance that occupies the space between stars. Dark matter makes up 99.99 percent of the universe, and they don't know what it is. Well I do. It's apathy. That's the truth of it; pile together everything we know and care about in the universe and it will still be nothing more than a tiny speck in the middle of a vast black ocean of Who Gives a Fuck.

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?

Words of wisdom are spoken by children at least as often as scientists.

There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down errors instead of establishing the truth.

If global cooling will come soon - scientists will lose trust.

Rocket scientists agree that we have about reached the limit of our ability to travel in space using chemical rockets. To achieve anything near the speed of light we will need a new energy source and a new propellant. Nuclear fission is not an option.

If we do discover a complete theory it should be in time understandable in broad principle by everyone. Then we shall all philosophers scientists and just ordinary people be able to take part in the discussion of why we and the universe exist.

Scientists at MIT and engineering schools all across America say that they could improve the fuel economy standards for the existing set of vehicles by 10 miles per gallon using existing technology without compromising safety or comfort at all.

What the public needs to understand is that these new technologies especially in recombinant DNA technology allow scientists to bypass biological boundaries altogether.

I think top scientists need to be compensated at a different scale in society. Somebody with experience will tell you that true scientists are not motivated by money - they are motivated by the quest itself. That is true. But I think an additional recognition will not hurt.

The conception that instead of this contemporary society is at or near a turning point is very prominent in the views of a school of social scientists who though they are still comparatively few are getting more and more of a hearing.

Science fiction is no more written for scientists that ghost stories are written for ghosts.

The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science.

No doubt it is true that science cannot study God but it hardly follows that God had to keep a safe distance from everything that scientists want to study.

Sure science involves trial and error. Scientists refine theories each day. But as they do they help us grasp more clearly the wonders of the world and the universe.

Anthropologists are a connecting link between poets and scientists though their field-work among primitive peoples has often made them forget the language of science.

Unfortunately Climate Science has become Political Science. It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.

At a time when science plays such a powerful role in the life of society when the destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research it is incumbent on all scientists to be fully conscious of that role and conduct themselves accordingly.

One of the problems we've had is that the ICT curriculum in the past has been written for a subject that is changing all the time. I think that what we should have is computer science in the future - and how it fits in to the curriculum is something we need to be talking to scientists to experts in coding and to young people about.

Traditionally scientists have treated the laws of physics as simply 'given ' elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science.

Much of Indian science seems intuitive and not bound by the rigid thinking of classical scientists.

We didn't set out to be educators or even scientists and we don't purport that what we do is real science but we're demonstrating a methodology by which one can engage and satisfy your curiosity.