Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
While we would love to have no criticism, probably if we had no critique, we wouldn't be doing anything meaningful.
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.
Science shouldn't be just for scientists, and there are encouraging signs that it is becoming more pervasive in culture and the media.
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.
Individual scientists cannot do much on their own. Heads of nations, corporates, and economic giants should recognise the criticality of it.
We would be in a nasty position indeed if empirical science were the only kind of science possible.
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.
I have suggested that scientific progress requires a favorable environment.
Well, they are critics of the Bush administration generally on the human rights record of the administration, and in particular, they are very, very critical of this use of science.
All good criticism should be judged the way art is. You shouldn't read it the way you read history or science.