It is necessary to look at the results of observation objectively, because you, the experimenter, might like one result better than another.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
One experiments and has to choose always the best results.
If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.
It is crucial for scientists to be willing to be wrong; otherwise, you might not do the most important experiments, or you may ignore your most important findings.
Observation is a passive science, experimentation an active science.
Sometimes you can fail in an experiment. But if you fail, you still don't stop observing that thing, looking for a better way.
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.
Part of the way that I work is to observe.
One of the distinguishing features of anything that aspires to the name of science is the reproducibility of experimental results.
Science is objective. And in my view we cannot take any experimental results seriously except in the light of good explanations of them.
I don't think that somebody who is observing or predicting behavior should also be participating in the 'experiment.'