A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Reacting in anger or annoyance will not advance one's ability to persuade.
I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.
Advertising is fundamentally persuasion and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art.
The artist does not illustrate science (but) he frequently responds to the same interests that a scientist does.
The influence of a science adviser is only as good as ears open to that science advice.
If you look at the scientists who really make a difference, they think boldly. They're not afraid to question what they see.
Scientists and academics in particular focus on detail and the minutiae. When they talk to each other, they usually don't focus on the broad ideas; they don't focus on social interconnectedness. They focus on the task that they're doing.
I'm a politician. I'm not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.
If a scientist is not befuddled by what they're looking at, then they're not a research scientist.
The insidiousness of science lies in its claim to be not a subject, but a method.
No opposing quotes found.