If you were just intent on killing people you could do better with a bomb made of agricultural fertiliser.

I have this extraordinary curiosity about all subjects of the natural and human world and the interaction between the physical sciences and the social sciences.

Cutting up fowl to predict the future is, if done honestly and with as little interpretation as possible, a kind of randomization. But chicken guts are hard to read and invite flights of fancy or corruption.

If you were just intent on killing people you could do better with a bomb made of agricultural fertiliser.

Every once in a while, something happens to you that makes you realise that the human race is not quite as bad as it so often seems to be.

All peoples have evolved extraordinarily precise ways of settling issues about the things that matter to them.

Dolomite is a whole mess of stuff, a mixture. It gets characterised as 'a stuff' because of the interest of oil geologists. It would have been a nonentity were it not for its applications.

Each of us becomes a new person as we re-describe the past.

Foucault is one of many who want a new conception of how power and knowledge interact. But he is not looking for a relation between two givens, 'power' and 'knowledge.' As always, he is trying to rethink the entire subject matter, and his 'knowledge' and 'power' are to be something else.

Foucault's genius is to go down to the little dramas, dress them in facts hardly anyone else has noticed, and turn these stage settings into clues to a hitherto un-thought series of confrontations out of which, he contends, the orderly structure of society is composed.

Great books are rare.

I think it's unfortunate when people say that there is just one true story of science. For one thing, there are many different sciences, and historians will tell different stories corresponding to different things.

I'm a dilettante. My governing word is 'curiosity.'

If you are a researcher and want to publish a paper, if you are applying for money either from a private or public foundation, you have to have a DSM code.

In every generation, there are quite firm rules on how to behave when you are crazy.

Kuhn was the intellectual of whom many scientists said he's 'telling it as is it is' insofar as talking about a process of 'tinkering' in terms of theory and experiment followed by radical changes. But often, what Kuhn had in mind were some very spectacular incidents in the history of the sciences that changed our way of looking at the world.

Molecular biology has routinely taken problematic things under its wing without altering core ideas.

One of Kuhn's marvellous legacies is science studies as we know it today.

One of the things Kuhn said about normal science is that people 'expect' things to be discovered.

One ought to begin an analysis of power from the ground up, at the level of tiny local events where battles are unwittingly enacted by players who don't know what they are doing.

Some people say they use images to help them remember intricacies. Others say they just remember. If they are able to form an image of the face, it is because they remember how it was: it is not that an image guides memory, but that memory produces an image, or the sense of imaging. We have no agreed way to talk clearly about such things.

The anti-Darwin movement has racked up one astounding achievement. It has made a significant proportion of American parents care about what their children are taught in school.

The debate about who decides what gets taught is fascinating, albeit excruciating for those who have to defend the schools against bunkum.

The public debate about evolution itself, as opposed to whether to teach it, is something else. It is boring, demeaning, and insufferably dull.

The stability of what's called the Standard Model of particle physics and its ability to make so many clever predictions with immense precision suggests that we may just be stuck with it, and there may never be an overthrow of that.

Unfortunately, anti-Darwinism keeps playing minor variations on the same negative themes and adds nothing to our understanding of life.

What are the relationships between power and knowledge? There are two bad, short answers: 1. Knowledge provides an instrument that those in power can wield for their own ends. 2. A new body of knowledge brings into being a new class of people or institutions that can exercise a new kind of power.

This is the patent age of new inventions for killing bodies, and for saving souls. All propagated with the best intentions.

Just able barely to mount a horse and ride about a little in the spring of 1866, my life was threatened daily, and I was forced to go heavily armed. The whole country was then full of militia, robbing, plundering and killing.

In the First World War, there was the sudden passion of nationalism, and the killing took place because of these emotions. But the Soviet case is different, because you had systematic murder, like the Holocaust.

Towns are suffering from all these things, we should unite until we are all satisfied, man cannot be killing each other as if we were animals, as if we had no culture; that is a lack of culture.

I need to die for the killing of those people.

But when I don't smoke I scarcely feel as if I'm living. I don't feel as if I'm living unless I'm killing myself.

You are dealing with people who have taken the responsibility of killing their own because they think that they are right, they think that they are serving the interests of their people. They not going to give that up easily, just because you've shown up.

I didn't want to kill a man. I'm not capable of killing a man. I wanted to kill a tyrant.

The person who is bent on killing you will follow you wherever you are.

So what if I'm smokin' weed onstage and doing what I gotta do? It's not me shooting nobody, stabbing nobody, killing nobody. It's a peaceful gesture and they have to respect that and appreciate that.

The art of creation is older than the art of killing.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: No matter how sharp a grievance or how deep a hurt, there is no justification for killing innocents.

I would, therefore, say that for no reason whatsoever, except in self-defence, should one think of killing any animal.

Unhappiness is not knowing what we want and killing ourselves to get it.

We're in an illusion about what our role is in world politics and foreign affairs, and our policies are killing and destroying and doing a lot of things that we are not aware of.

Unprovoked attacks on Israel's borders, murdering Israeli soldiers, taking Israeli hostages and showering rockets targeting and killing Israeli civilians are not furthering any legitimate goal.

War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.

I'd say my happiest moment as an actress came when I learned I'd won the Look Magazine Best Supporting Actress Award for 1956 in The Killing.

I might talk about killing people, but that doesn't mean I do it.

The majority of Aboriginals do not want handouts because they realise that welfare is killing them.

Men killing other men really is an extraordinary phenomenon. Why does it happen? And how long has it gone on? And have the motives changed?

A human being has been given an intellect to make choices, and we know there are other food sources that do not require the killing of a creature that would protest being killed.