I'm a scientist, not a theologian. I don't know if there is a God or not. Religion requires certainty. Revere and respect Gaia. Have trust in Gaia. But not faith.
Well, I mean, I'm still a scientist, you know. I think once a scientist, always a scientist.
The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
I'm really a scientist. I follow recipes exactly - until I decide not to. And then I'll follow something else exactly. I may decide I could turn this peach tart into a plum tart, but if I'm following a recipe, I follow it exactly.
I was going to visit IBM for six months as a visiting scientist. Now, six months is a lot of time, so I came with a whole list of projects that I might want to work on.
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished, has accomplished nothing.
As a scientist, I don't believe science will ever discover whether God exists. Nor do I believe religion will ever prove it.
The fact that the great scientist believed in flying machines was the one thing that encouraged us to begin our studies.
For a scientist, it is a unique experience to live through a period in which his field of endeavour comes to bloom - to be witness to those rare moments when the dawn of understanding finally descends upon what appeared to be confusion only a while ago - to listen to the sound of darkness crumbling.
I had an artistic streak and was good at painting and drawing and also very good at English, but I did want to be a scientist. The education system means you have to choose physics or Shakespeare. It can't be both.
There are - any independent study, from any scientist that's not funded by Syngenta, has found similar problems with atrazine, not just my work on frogs.
I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.
Of course, Einstein was a very great scientist indeed, and I have enormous respect for him, and great admiration for the discoveries he made. But he was very committed to a view of the objectivity of the physical world.
It's always a tough call deciding whether, as a scientist, you should argue publicly with the creationists. It's a dilemma that I encounter frequently in another subject area: Does it make sense to bandy words with someone from the UFO community?
As a child, I remember my own intensive interest in biology, birds, other animals and flowers and was determined at an early age to become a scientist.
I do like to cook; I'm sort of a mad scientist in the kitchen.
I had changed from being a mathematician to a practicing scientist. I was increasingly embarassed that I could no longer follow some of the more modern branches of pure mathematics.
One day when I was 8 years old, everyone was talking in hushed tones about a great scientist that had just died. His name was Albert Einstein.
The practical case for manned spacef light gets ever-weaker with each advance in robots and miniaturisation - indeed, as a scientist or practical man, I see little purpose in sending people into space at all. But as a human being, I'm an enthusiast for manned missions.
A scientist... must accept the results of experiment, and nothing but the results of experiment.
I can't imagine how many kids around the world will look at pictures of Pluto and think, 'I want to grow up to be a scientist.'
Touch a scientist and you touch a child.
I never wanted to be a scientist per se. I wanted to be a naturalist.
Why is it the philosopher who is expected to be easier and not some scientist who is even more inaccessible?
When a scientist is ahead of his times, it is often through misunderstanding of current, rather than intuition of future truth. In science there is never any error so gross that it won't one day, from some perspective, appear prophetic.
I didn't want to be an author; I wanted to be a scientist. Not that I didn't love literature, but I couldn't distinguish it from reading, and reading was already my default activity, almost like breathing.
I am a scientist. Mine is a professional world that achieves great things for humanity.
Rather than being an interpreter, the scientist who embraces a new paradigm is like the man wearing inverting lenses.
Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
I was the only child, and I know my father had certain thoughts about me. He was a lawyer and extremely literary, but he would have been much happier if I had wanted to be a lawyer, a scientist, an engineer. But what I wanted to do was read.
I was never going to be a rocket scientist. But I found the field that I was blessed to be able to do, and I just put my whole effort into that.
Women tend to be more intuitive, or to admit to being intuitive, and maybe the hard science approach isn't so attractive. The way that science is taught is very cold. I would never have become a scientist if I had been taught like that.
I refrained from writing another one, thinking to myself: Never mind, I will prove that I am able to become a greater scientist than some of you, even without the title of doctor.