The lived experiences which could not find adequate scientific expression in the substance doctrine of rational psychology were now validated in light of new and better methods.
When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.
The ideal scientist thinks like a poet, works like a bookkeeper, and writes like a journalist.
I think it's important for scientists to speak in their own voices and not just be mediated by journalists or others speaking for them.
I've always been on a quest to use science in an artful way.
Mathematics is pure language - the language of science. It is unique among languages in its ability to provide precise expression for every thought or concept that can be formulated in its terms.
I do not see how a man can work on the frontiers of physics and write poetry at the same time. They are in opposition. In science you want to say something that nobody knew before, in words which everyone can understand. In poetry you are bound to say ... something that everyone knows already in words that nobody can understand. Commenting to him about the poetry J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote.
The simplicities of natural laws arise through the complexities of the language we use for their expression.
Scientist alone is true poet.
Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as the physicist means to say.
A lot of scientists hate writing. Most scientists love being in the lab and doing the work and when the work is done, they are finished.
To have ideas one must have imagination. To express ideas one must have science.
I think there's a certain lyricism in the telling of a scientific story.
The simplest and cheapest of all reforms within institutional science is to switch from the passive to the active voice in writing about science.
