Hank Green Quotes

I'm a great believer that scientists should spend as much time as possible explaining, and you do explain in the process of teaching.

Anything that promotes a kernel of science, even though it's exaggerated and hyped by Hollywood, I think is a step forward. We in the ivory tower ultimately have to realize that in some sense we have to sing for our supper.

I recognize that there's an appetite that I'm now serving, and I'm happy to do so. I think it means quite a bit that science has achieved this level of public interest and access. And so I'm simultaneously astonished every day upon recognizing this, and I think it's a good sign for the country and possibly for the world.

I believe scientists have a duty to share the excitement and pleasure of their work with the general public, and I enjoy the challenge of presenting difficult ideas in an understandable way.

If scientists can't communicate with the public, with policy makers, with one another, the future is going to be held back. We're not going to have the future that we could have.

If you publish a scientific paper it is very hard to start a nationwide debate about something. If you do this in a movie, you can start a debate. We like to create a bridge between those two worlds - film and science.

When I write a scientific treatise, I might reach 100 people. When the 'National Geographic' covers a project, it communicates about plants and fish and underwater technology to more than 10 million people.

Science shouldn't be just for scientists, and there are encouraging signs that it is becoming more pervasive in culture and the media.

It is entirely possible to present science accurately and have a hit show.

Public sharing is an important part of science.

Businesses that distribute information and news are in the business of training and teaching people.

I would say it's important for scientists to speak out when they can and when they can be listened to.

I think science is a foreign land for many people, so I think of my role as an ambassador's job.

Before I lost my voice, it was slurred, so only those close to me could understand, but with the computer voice, I found I could give popular lectures. I enjoy communicating science. It is important that the public understands basic science, if they are not to leave vital decisions to others.

I hope I have helped to raise the profile of science and to show that physics is not a mystery but can be understood by ordinary people.

We have to change the way people look at scientists. Today, they are the nerds, the geeks. Instead, we want some of the cool kids to say, 'Hey, this is all right.'

Scientists aren't necessarily good communicators, because they aren't trained to be good communicators.

'The Daily Show' took a topic - politics - which many people considered to be boring, confusing, or even annoying to learn about, and found a way to make it interesting, digestible, and fun. I believe 'Bill Nye Saves the World' can do the same for science.

The phrase ‘popular science’ has in itself a touch of absurdity. That knowledge which is popular is not scientific.

One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in those who borrow the language

If people don’t have an understanding of what science is and what scientists do, then they can tend to think that global warming, for example, is just a matter of opinion.

With science becoming far more accessible to all of us, I've become a pretty avid reader and devourer of it. One of the objectives that I had working with Fringe was to get more people talking about it because it's such fun.

Anything, even the conceptually most complex material, can be written for general audiences without any dumbing down. Of course you have to explain things carefully. This goes back to Galileo, who wrote his great books as dialogues in Italian, not as treatises in Latin. And to Darwin, who wrote The Origin of Species for general readers. I think a lot of people pick up Darwin's book and assume it must be a popular version of some technical monograph, but there is no technical monograph. That's what he wrote. So what I'm doing is part of a great humanistic tradition.

No one suggests that writing about science will turn the entire world into a model of judgment and creative thought. It will be enough if they spread the knowledge as widely as possible.

Science is not finished until it is communicated.