Talcott Parsons Quotes

From all this it follows what the general character of the problem of the development of a body of scientific knowledge is, in so far as it depends on elements internal to science itself.

Over the years, a number of other intriguing experimental ideas and areas of investigation have been the objects of my attention, and I have devoted some time and effort to exploring the inherent possbilities.

It is that of increasing knowledge of empirical fact, intimately combined with changing interpretations of this body of fact - hence changing general statements about it - and, not least, a changing a structure of the theoretical system.

The ideas of science germinate in a matrix of established knowledge gained by experiment; they are not lonesome thoughts, born in a rarified realm where no researcher has ever gone before.

Thus, in general, in the first instance, the direction of interest in empirical fact will be canalised by the logical structure of the theoretical system.

Hypotheses should be subservient only in explaining the properties of things but not assumed in determining them, unless so far as they may furnish experiments.

Frequently, I have been asked if an experiment I have planned is pure or applied research; to me, it is more important to know if the experiment will yield new and probably enduring knowledge about nature.

True science is never speculative; it employs hypotheses as suggesting points for inquiry, but it never adopts the hypotheses as though they were demonstrated propositions.

The true method of knowledge is experiment.

Hypotheses are what we lack the least.

If a scientist is not befuddled by what they're looking at, then they're not a research scientist.

Scientists tend to build a reputation on refuting the theories of those who have gone before. Yet, whatever we hypothesize, observe, measure or record about the natural world, it leaves more unanswered questions.

For me, science is just a bunch of tools - it's like playing the violin. I just enjoy calculating, and it's an instrument I know how to play. It's almost an athletic performance, in a way. I was just watching the Olympics, and that's how I feel when proving a theorem.

An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature and a measurement is the recording of Nature's answer.

For me, science is just a bunch of tools - it's like playing the violin.

Hypotheses are only the pieces of scaffolding which are erected round a building during the course of construction, and which are taken away as soon as the edifice is completed.

Theories without facts may be barren, but facts without theories are meaningless.

Particular facts are never scientific; only generalization can establish science.

The best scientific way to discover if one factor influences another is to do a controlled experiment.

'Eureka' moments are very, very rare in my experience. It normally takes several weeks of experiments to tease out the truth, even when you have a really pretty good idea of what is going on.

If you are a researcher, you are trying to figure out what the question is as well as what the answer is.

The paradigm of physics - with its interplay of data, theory and prediction - is the most powerful in science.

If you can help other people understand those truths - and in my mind, the only way I know to do that is with large scale, multi-year research projects, where you start with a question and then very rigorously and comprehensively answer that question.

The scientist's inquiry into the causes of things is providing an ever more extensive understanding of nature.

Most scientific problems are defined by the question of whether a graduate student can study it for his thesis.