Marvin Harris Quotes

Moreover, in the experimental sciences, the scientific fraternity must test a new theory to destruction, if possible.

Theorists have wonderful ideas which take years and years to be verified.

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one.

Science has authority, not because of white coats, or titles, but because of precision and transparency: you explain your theory, set out your evidence, and reference the studies that support your case.

The process of science is difficult and challenging. It involves always being aware that your ideas might be right or they might be wrong. I think it's that kind of balance that makes science so interesting.

The thrill of science is the process. It's a social process. It's a process of collective discovery. It's debate, it's experimentation and it's verification of claims that might be false. It's the greatest foundation for a society.

Science is a self-correcting discipline that can, in subsequent generations, show that previous ideas were not correct.

You make observations, write theories to fit them, try experiments to disprove the theories and, if you can't, you've got something.

Science is a series of judgments, revised without ceasing.

Just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science

In science, you can say things that seem crazy, but in the long run, they can turn out to be right. We can get really good evidence, and in the end, the community will come around.

Science isn't about authority or white coats; it's about following a method. That method is built on core principles: precision and transparency; being clear about your methods; being honest about your results; and drawing a clear line between the results, on the one hand, and your judgment calls about how those results support a hypothesis.

In scientific work, those who refuse to go beyond fact rarely get as far as fact.

If you're a physicist, for heaven's sake, and here is the experiment, and you have a theory, and the theory doesn't agree with the experiment, then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.

Most physicists like myself won't believe the result until every possible caveat has been investigated and/or the result is confirmed elsewhere.

In my grandfather's lab, scientists did independent research, and peers reviewed and commented on its merits. Politics, he taught me, had no place in the scientific process.

Our empirical criterion for a series of theories is that it should produce new facts. The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one.

I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Science thrives on self-correction …. refutation almost always contains positive lessons that overwhelm disappointment.

A good scientific theory is one which is falsifiable, which has not been falsified.

Science is evidence-based and provides a continuing understanding of complex natural phenomena. Our understanding is constantly evolving and continually improving.

A valid scientific theory is predictive, verifiable, and replicable. To me, that's beautiful.

Science does not limit itself merely to what is currently verifiable. But it is interested in questions that are potentially verifiable (or, rather, falsifiable).

Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature.