We do not learn by inference and deduction and the application of mathematics to philosophy, but by direct intercourse and sympathy.

Tax dollars intended for science education must not be used to teach creationism as any sort of real explanation of nature, because any observation or process of inference about our origin and the nature of the universe disproves creationism in every respect.

Data and data sets are not objective; they are creations of human design. We give numbers their voice, draw inferences from them, and define their meaning through our interpretations.

The first and most important field of philosophy is the application of principles such as "Do not lie." Next come the proofs, such as why we should not lie. The third field supports and articulates the proofs, by asking, for example, "How does this prove it? What exactly is a proof, what is logical inference, what is contradiction, what is truth, what is falsehood?" Thus, the third field is necessary because of the second, and the second because of the first. The most important, though, the one that should occupy most of our time, is the first. But we do just the opposite. We are preoccupied with the third field and give that all our attention, passing the first by altogether. The result is that we lie ? but have no difficulty proving why we shouldn't.

We do not learn by inference and deduction and the application of mathematics to philosophy but by direct intercourse and sympathy.

We may take it to be the accepted idea that the Mosaic books were not handed down to us for our instruction in scientific knowledge and that it is our duty to ground our scientific beliefs upon observation and inference unmixed with considerations of a different order.

There is no reasoning no process of inference or comparison there is no thinking about things no putting two and two together there are no ideas - the animal does not think of the box or of the food or of the act he is to perform.