Vilayanur S. Ramachandran Quotes

True science teaches, above all, to doubt and to be ignorant.

The doubter is a true man of science: he doubts only himself and his interpretations, but he believes in science.

Doubt is clearly a value in science. It is important to doubt and that the doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of great value.

Scientists generally, not just evolutionary biologists, don't take much for granted.

I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions. This attitude of mind - this attitude of uncertainty - is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the student must first acquire.

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

Even if I stumble on to the absolute truth of any aspect of the universe, I will not realise my luck and instead will spend my life trying to find flaws in this understanding - such is the role of a scientist.

I was not surprised by the results of the Horizon experiments, but I remain willing to observe and consider any and all other tests that are done under similarly precise conditions.

The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, seek simplicity and distrust it.

I'm comfortable reading science and dissecting it and discerning the difference between junk science and real science.

Debunking bad science should be constant obligation of the science community, even if it takes time away from serious research or seems to be a losing battle. One takes comfort from the fact there is no Gresham's laws in science. In the long run, good science drives out bad.

If we teach only the findings and products of science - no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be - without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience?

Scientists are skeptics. It's unfortunate that the word 'skeptic' has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it's just thoughtful inquiry.

The only universal attribute of scientific statements resides in their potential fallibility. If a claim cannot be disproven, it does not belong to the enterprise of science.

There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.

It's always good in science to say "Well how do you know that?" and "Are you really sure?" and "Could there be an exceptional case?"

What merit there is in my thinking is derived from two peculiarities: (1) My inability to be familiar with anything. I simply can't take things for granted. (2) My endless patience. I assume that the only way to find an answer is to hang on long enough and keep groping.

For a long time the human instinct to understand was thwarted by facile religious explanations.

Does not the discipline of the scientific spirit just commence when one no longer harbours any conviction?

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes-an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.

In science , all conclusions are provisional, subject to new evidence and better arguments, the very antithesis of religious faith.

The young child approaching a new subject or anew problem is like the scientist operating at the edge of his chosen field.

Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new.

A scientist ought to have a healthy disregard for coincidences.

The study of science teaches young men to think, while study of the classics teaches them to express thought.