No one believes an hypothesis except its originator but everyone believes an experiment except the experimenter. Most people are ready to believe something based on experiment but the experimenter knows the many little things that could have gone wrong in the experiment. For this reason the discoverer of a new fact seldom feels quite so confident of it as others do.
I had therefore, no hesitation in giving all the information I had, even though occasionally I tried to concentrate mainly on giving information about the results of my own work.
When speaking of a "body of knowledge" or of "the results of research," e.g., we tacitly assign the same cognitive status to inherited knowledge and to independently acquired knowledge. To counteract this tendency a special effort is required to transform inherited knowledge into genuine knowledge by revitalizing its original discovery, and to discriminate between the genuine and the spurious elements of what claims to be inherited knowledge.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
It was getting the results that made science worth doing; the accolades were a thin, secondary pleasure.
Our research led on to other things, such as the fact that exchange rates are not lognormally distributed.
My scientific studies have afforded me great gratification; and I am convinced that it will not be long before the whole world acknowledges the results of my work.
Certainly the research shows that grateful people are more innovative thinkers.
Indeed optimists rather than defeatists have produced the results for which serious genealogical research is best known.
Surprising as it may seem, this study indicates that similar conditions are best for all sorts of races.
Speaking for myself, I spend a good ten minutes a day deciding whether or not to read the results of new surveys, and, once I have read them, a further five minutes deciding whether or not to take them seriously.
The press still thinks [global warming] is controversial. So they find the 1% of the scientists and put them up as if they're 50% of the research results. You in the public would have no idea that this is basically a done deal and that we're on to other problems, because the journalists are trying to give it a 50/50 story. It's not a 50/50 story. It's not. Period.
After doing extensive research, I can definitely tell you that single malt whiskies are good to drink.
If you are funding researchers to look primarily for pathology, not surprisingly, that is what they are going to find and report on.
Only by observing this condition would the results of our work be regarded as fully conclusive and as having elucidated the normal course of the phenomena.
I constructed a laboratory in the neighborhood of Pike's Peak. The conditions in the pure air of the Colorado Mountains proved extremely favorable for my experiments, and the results were most gratifying to me.
The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before.
