One of the laws of nature, Gordon said, is that half the people have got to be below average. For a Gaussian distribution, yeah, Cooper said. Sad, though.
It was getting the results that made science worth doing; the accolades were a thin, secondary pleasure.
Science is like literature, a continuing dialog among diverse and conflicting voices, no one ever wholly right or wholly wrong, but a steady conversation forever provisional and personal and living.
Religions do not teach doubt.
Disintegration of structure equals information loss.
It was an example of what he thought of as the Law of Controversy: Passion was inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.
If you were damned certain you weren't looking for something, there was a very good chance you wouldn't see it.
The personal was, compared with the tides of great nations, a bothersome detail.
Any technology that does not appear magical is insufficiently advanced.
(Crank theories) always violated the first rule of a scientific model: they were uncheckable.
Yes, perhaps that was it. For decades now the picture of the world painted by the scientists had become strange, distant, unbelievable. Far easier, then, to ignore it than try to understand. Things were too complicated. Why bother? Turn on the telly, luv. Right.
All right, he thought, so the details were not perfect. But maybe, in a sense, that was part of the magic, too.
No matter how much you plan for it, the real thing seems curiously, well, unreal.
The peers just fill the air with their speeches. And from what I've seen, vice versa.