The artist does not illustrate science (but) he frequently responds to the same interests that a scientist does.
Why is it the philosopher who is expected to be easier and not some scientist who is even more inaccessible?
When I was in high school and college, I thought everybody could think in pictures. And my first inkling to my thinking was even different was when I was in college and I read an article about, you know, some scientist said that the caveman could not have designed tools until they had language.
‘Blowback,’ as many ‘Nation’ readers are aware, was a term introduced into popular circulation by the late political scientist Chalmers Johnson, an old Cold Warrior turned dissident.
The positive heuristic of the programme saves the scientist from becoming confused by the ocean of anomalies.
The scientist rigorously defends his right to be ignorant of almost everything except his specialty.
I am as non-accepting of medical quackery and unscientific approaches as anybody else. I’ve grown up as a card-carrying scientist, and I know the power of science to answer questions, and for many questions I don’t know of anything better than scientific approaches to answer them.
The intellectual takes as a starting point his self and relates the world to his own sensibilities; the scientist accepts an existing field of knowledge and seeks to map out the unexplored terrain.
Take the situation of a scientist solving a problem, where he has certain data, which call for certain responses. Some of this set of data call for his applying such and such a law, while others call for another law.
When I was little, my parents really only wanted me to be a scientist or a doctor; they had never even heard of law school. I think even these days if you were to tell your mother you want to be a fashion designer, or an artist or a writer, a lot of Asian parents would be alarmed because they don’t think that’s a secure career.