One can measure the importance of a scientific work by the number of earlier publications rendered superfluous by it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do.
Research is of considerable importance in certain fields, such as science and history.
The value of a scientific publication goes beyond this simple benefit, of all relevant information appearing, unambiguously, in one place. It's also a way to communicate your ideas to your scientific peers, and invite them to express an informed view.
Moreover, only a strong and united scientific opinion imposing the intrinsic value of scientific progress on society at large can elicit the support of scientific inquiry by the general public.
In an ideal world, you might imagine that scientific papers were only cited by academics on the basis of their content. This might be true. But lots of other stuff can have an influence.
There is some truth to the idea that, in the fields of science, individual contributions of great significance are possible.
Of course, relative citation frequencies are no measure of relative importance. Who has not aspired to write a paper so fundamental that very soon it is known to everyone and cited by no one?
I felt strongly that since the pursuit of good science was so difficult it was essential that the problem being studied was an important one to justify the effort expanded.
Some things tend not to work so well for science - things that rely on substantial written contributions by key experts are a case in point - but even there I tend to keep an open mind, because it may just be a case of finding the right formula.
That which today calls itself science gives us more and more information, and indigestible glut of information, and less and less understanding.
No opposing quotes found.