In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A humble scientist is a good scientist.
I think it's important for scientists to be a bit less arrogant, a bit more humble, recognising we are capable of making mistakes and being fallacious - which is increasingly serious in a society where our work may have unpredictable consequences.
Not one man in a thousand has the strength of mind or the goodness of heart to be an atheist.
Science is very vibrant. There are always new observations to be found. And it's all in the interest in challenging the authority that came before you. That's consistent with the punk rock ethos that suggests that you should not take what people say at face value.
Admittedly, scientific authority is not distributed evenly throughout the body of scientists; some distinguished members of the profession predominate over others of a more junior standing.
The absolute worst thing that you ever can do, in my opinion, in bringing science to the general public, is be condescending or judgmental. It is so opposite to the way science needs to be brought forth.
Far from being demeaning to human spiritual values, scientific rationalism is the crowning glory of the human spirit.
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
I think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can run the universe.
Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.
No opposing quotes found.