Fruitful discourse in science or theology requires us to believe that within the contexts of normal discourse there are some true statements.

If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us that we are the reason there is a Universe does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

English is necessary as at present original works of science are in English. I believe that in two decades times original works of science will start coming out in our languages. Then we can move over like the Japanese.

Bush reiterated his stand to conservatives opposing his decision on stem cell research. He said today he believes life begins at conception and ends at execution.

The nineteenth century believed in science but the twentieth century does not.

I believe in general in a dualism between facts and the ideas of those facts in human heads.

A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty until found effective.

I think that the Information Age is great but there's a downside to it obviously as well and it's that false information can be perpetuated so quickly. And it's sad that so many people will believe it.

But probably my favorite music believe it or not is sad music.