Brian Greene Quotes

The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions.

There never comes a point where a theory can be said to be true. The most that one can claim for any theory is that it has shared the successes of all its rivals and that it has passed at least one test which they have failed.

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

Falsifiability for a theory is great, but a theory can still be respectable even if it is not falsifiable, as long as it is verifiable.

The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

To say that prediction is the purpose of a scientific theory is to confuse means with ends. It is like saying that the purpose of a spaceship is to burn fuel. ... Passing experimental tests is only one of many things a theory has to do to achieve the real purpose of science, which is to explain the world.

The strength of a theory is not what it allows, but what it prohibits; if you can invent an equally persuasive explanation for any outcome, you have zero knowledge.

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

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

A theory has only the alternative of being right or wrong. A model has a third possibility: it may be right, but irrelevant.

If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing.

The situation in the sciences is this: A concept or an idea which cannot be measured or cannot be referred directly to experiment may or may not be useful. It need not exist in a theory.

What has been happening more lately - of course, I also put in my bio, I say I do the voice of Goliath, but some people go - you know, I say something, and it's a funny thing when you work in this business, people will talk out loud in front of you like you're not there.

The overwhelming majority of theories are rejected because they contain bad explanations, not because they fail experimental tests.

I hold that the propositions embodied in natural science are not derived by any definite rule from the data of experience, and that they can neither be verified nor falsified by experience according to any definite rule.

You always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called 'scientific theory' that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they've defined it, can never be disproved.

There is no justifiable prediction about how the hypothesis will hold up in the future; its degree of corroboration simply is a historical statement describing how severely the hypothesis has been tested in the past.

You can't prove any hypothesis, you can only improve or disprove it.

All phenomena] are equally susceptible of being calculated, and all that is necessary, to reduce the whole of nature to laws similar to those which Newton discovered with the aid of the calculus, is to have a sufficient number of observations and a mathematics that is complex enough.

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

Some people think the world will end in 2012. I think we've got until 2014. I'm an optimist.

I am a phenomenologist - I work on developing theoretical models that are constrained by observations.

Science has very definite faith components, and most religions don't stick to faith. They venture out into making predictions about our physical world. They don't just say there's something that is completely unconnected to us. They say actually it affects a lot. And when they do that, they merge.

As you know, a theory in physics is not useful unless it is able to predict underlined effects which we would otherwise expect.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.