Amy Cuddy Quotes

Disagreements are one of the fundamental positive aspects of science.

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

To the scientists of the Renaissance, your critic was really your ally, helping you advance upon reality. Critics in science are not like drama critics, determining flops and successes. Criticism to scientists is just another means of finding out whether they're wrong, like running another experiment to see if it confirms or refutes a theory. Along with the advocacy principle of the courtroom, It is one of the best ways human beings have evolved to get closer to the truth.

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

Perhaps it would be better for science, that all criticism should be avowed.

I don't feel that an atmosphere of debate and total disagreement and argument is such a bad thing. It makes for a vital and alive field.

Although scientists can often be as resistant to new ideas as anyone, the process of science ensures that, over time, good ideas and theories prevail.

Scientific research involves going beyond the well-trodden and well-tested ideas and theories that form the core of scientific knowledge. During the time scientists are working things out, some results will be right, and others will be wrong. Over time, the right results will emerge.

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.

We receive the truths of science by compulsion. Nothing but ignorance is able to resist them.

The great tragedy of Science --- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact

If you agree with everything I have said, then I have failed.

I'm a fan of robust debate, and I'm not averse to engaging in the odd ad hominem attack myself.

But perhaps the rest of us could have separate classes in science appreciation, the wonder of science, scientific ways of thinking, and the history of scientific ideas, rather than laboratory experience.

It is possible in medicine, even when you intend to do good, to do harm instead. That is why science thrives on actively encouraging criticism rather than stifling it.

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

There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.

When candidate Donald Trump said things that I didn't necessarily agree with, I would call him on it.

If you disagree with me about a position I have taken, or what I've done, tell me, argue with me, debate. Sometimes, right and good are not that clear; at other times, it is only deliberate and respectful debate that leads us to understand what road we should take.

I will attack ideas very hard. I am not shy about that one bit. So I don't want people to think that because I had a call for civility that that means I shy away from debate and that I'm agreeable. That's not the case. What is the case is that I will not question who you are as a person.

Only by ignorance is science threatened.

Not everyone agrees. If you disagree with me, I want you to tell me, and I'm going to come back and tell you why it's my opinion.

I think you have to be creative to make a difference in science.

I'm a firm believer in science.