I'm doing a book, 'Chasing Science,' about the pleasures of science as a spectator sport.

Stories where the author has known very little, but run a computer program that tells him how to construct a planet, and looked up specific things about rocketry and so on, really suck.

A large fraction of the most interesting scientists have read a lot of SF at one time or another, either early enough that it may have played a part in their becoming scientists or at some later date just because they liked the ideas.

I'm doing a book, 'Chasing Science,' about the pleasures of science as a spectator sport.

I don't think the scientific method and the science fictional method are really analogous. The thing about them is that neither is really practiced very much, at least not consciously. But the fact that they are methodical does relate them.

You look at the world around you, and you take it apart into all its components. Then you take some of those components, throw them away, and plug in different ones, start it up and see what happens.

That's the method: restructure the world we live in in some way, then see what happens.

If you don't care about science enough to be interested in it on its own, you shouldn't try to write hard science fiction. You can write like Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison as much as you want.

The head of Fermilab was reading Astonishing Stories when he was ten.

The science fiction method is dissection and reconstruction.

I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.

I did that for 40 years or more. I never had any writer's block. I got up in the morning, sat down at the typewriter - now, computer - lit up a cigarette.

In terms of stories I would buy for a science fiction magazine, if they take place in the future, that might do it.

The big new development in my life is, when I turned 80, I decided I no longer have to do four pages a day. For me, it's like retiring.

I'm pretty catholic about what constitutes science fiction.

My old English buddy, John Rackham, wrote and told me what made science fiction different from all other kinds of literature - science fiction is written according to the science fiction method.

It's clear that science and science fiction have overlapping populations.

My first thought was always a cigarette. It still is, but I haven't cheated.

A lot of the cosmologists and astrophysicists clearly had been reading science fiction.

People ask me how I do research for my science fiction. The answer is, I never do any research.

Stephen Hawking said he spent most of his first couple of years at Cambridge reading science fiction (and I believe that, because his grades weren't all that great).

Teachers started recognizing me and praising me for being smart in science and that made me want to be even smarter in science!

This means that to entrust to science - or to deliberate control according to scientific principles - more than scientific method can achieve may have deplorable effects.

Research is of considerable importance in certain fields, such as science and history.

The fact that it's science fiction gives you the license to do anything you want to do.

Statistics is the grammar of science.

I love biomedical science, I love astronomy, and you can't really do much with those in a fantasy setting.

Learn about the world, the way it works, any kind of science and anthropology, it's really an interesting place we live in. Evolution is a really fantastic idea, even more than the idea of God I think.

The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science.

Scientists tend to be skeptical, but the weakness of the community of science is that it tends to move into preformed establishment modes that say this is the only way of doing science, the only valid view.

To my mind, the most important aspect of the Nobel Awards is that they bring home to the masses of the peoples of all nations, a realization of their common interests. They carry to those who have no direct contact with science the international spirit.

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance.

We especially need imagination in science.

Christmas renews our youth by stirring our wonder. The capacity for wonder has been called our most pregnant human faculty, for in it are born our art, our science, our religion.

The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.

Advances in science and medical research and public health policies have meant that life expectancy for Australians is one of the highest in the world.

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?

There are no enemies in science, professor. Only phenomena to study.

Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.

You know, there was a time, just before I started to study physical science, when astronomers thought that systems such as we have here in the solar system required a rare triple collision of stars.

The views of the Earth are really beautiful. If you've ever seen a space IMAX movie, that's really what it looks like. I wish I'd had more time just to sit and look out the window with a map, but our science program kept us very busy in the lab most of the time.

They look at what's more important, like subjects to help with the SAT's, etc. They miss that music is vital. It offers a break from a stressful day of science and math and it's different.

Some theists in evolutionary science acquiesce to these tacit rules and retain a personal faith while accepting a thoroughly naturalistic picture of physical reality.

In science, read, by preference, the newest works; in literature, the oldest. The classic literature is always modern.

I have never been a critic of science fiction as a whole.

In the last fifty years science has advanced more than in the 2,000 previous years and given mankind greater powers over the forces of nature than the ancients ascribed to their gods.

Truth in science is always determined from observational facts.

I have always loved science fiction. One of my favorite shows is 'Star Trek.' I like the trips, where it drops my mind off, because they give you a premise and all of a sudden, you say, 'Oh!' and I'm fascinated by it.

If history and science have taught us anything, it is that passion and desire are not the same as truth.