I don't think that somebody who is observing or predicting behavior should also be participating in the 'experiment.'
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Of course, not everybody's willing to go out and do the experiments, but for the people who are willing to go out and do that, - if the experiments don't work, then it means it's not science.
Everything is an experiment.
It is necessary to look at the results of observation objectively, because you, the experimenter, might like one result better than another.
I always say, 'Let your experiment speak to you.' What I mean by that is I - actually, we, or, at least, I'm not smart enough, actually, to guess how nature is working, but by looking and doing the right experiments and paying close attention to the subtleties of it, you start to catch on.
Experimentation is an active science.
It's not an experiment if you know it's going to work.
I don't like the word 'experiment' in the context of art in general. It implies something immature, unfinished, something entertaining for a moment before it becomes irrelevant.
Sometimes you can fail in an experiment. But if you fail, you still don't stop observing that thing, looking for a better way.
Observation is a passive science, experimentation an active science.
The problem with experiments has always been that human beings make the decisions on whether or not the animals have benefitted from the treatment.
No opposing quotes found.