Attitude toward what good science is and the strategy of
scientific research affect strongly the long-term outcome (in terms of the
quality (not quantity) of research) of individual scientist and even of a
scientific institution. We can say fairly that quantity of research (i.e., the
number of publications or of patents) is largely controlled by money (funding),
but the quality of research (measured by the real progress in science) is not
simply a linear function of input money; The quality of research is more
affected by intellectual or human factors. Below we cite some interesting
opinions and essays on science philosophy, which address these subtle but
important issues.
To individual
scientific workers:
One must aim to
understand everything. --- A.B.
Migdal
To scientific institution or research group:
The research process cannot be designed to generate serendipity, but
it can be kept open and flexible, ready to respond to the lightening, wherever
it may strike. (Opinion:
Serendipity, John Ziman, Phys. Bull. 32(1981))
Miscellaneous
1.
What cannot be said in
science (Mott T. Greene, Nature, vol.388, 619
(1997))
--- on the importance of broad view in scientific research
2.
William Sams, “Limitations of Science”, Philosopher
Scientist, p850, 1976
Above the edifices and foundation of established science, there ever hovers a
dust cloud of unexplained results, which it most often proves inconvenient, and
is left behind by the practitioners to move on to observations which are in accord
with the dogmas…
3.
G.B. Shaw
… the danger is greatest when you propose a theory … and then fall in love with
it…
4.
Einstein
Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.