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.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The interpretation of facts in a certain way stimulates other scientists' thoughts.
Sometimes the reader will decide something else than the author's intent; this is certainly true of attempts to empirically decipher reality.
Scientific discoveries matter much more when they're communicated simply and well - if you can't explain your work to the man in the pub, what's the point?
A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.
It is this, at its most basic, that makes science a humane pursuit; it acknowledges the commonality of people's experience.
The insidiousness of science lies in its claim to be not a subject, but a method.
Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge.
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.
What is the quality of your intent?
Part of the scientific temperament is this tolerance for holding multiple hypotheses in mind at the same time.