I dislike literary jargon and never use it. Criticism has only one function and that is to help readers read and understand literature. It is not a science it is an aid to art.

How thoroughly it is ingrained in mathematical science that every real advance goes hand in hand with the invention of sharper tools and simpler methods which at the same time assist in understanding earlier theories and in casting aside some more complicated developments.

When I did 'Battlestar Galactica' it was the first time I really understood science fiction. That was a very political drama but set in spaceships so people didn't really take it seriously. But some really fascinating things were explored in that.

I have been a reader of Science Fiction and Fantasy for a long time since I was 11 or 12 I think so I understand it and I'm not at all surprised that readers of the genre might enjoy my books.

Today over half of China's undergraduate degrees are in math science technology and engineering yet only 16 percent of America's undergraduates pursue these schools.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.

Don't you see what's at stake here? The ultimate aim of all science to penetrate the unknown. Do you realize we know less about the earth we live on than about the stars and the galaxies of outer space? The greatest mystery is right here right under our feet.

If you just have a single problem to solve then fine go ahead and use a neural network. But if you want to do science and understand how to choose architectures or how to go to a new problem you have to understand what different architectures can and cannot do.

It turns out that understanding the British public is not rocket science. The British appreciate honesty and they also have a bonkers off-the-wall sense of humour like me.

I didn't understand how you could be an actor if you didn't also study philosophy and study political science astronomy. And also just go out and live life and have experiences.

It seems true that the growth of science and secularism made organized Christianity feel under threat.

Better to die in the pursuit of civilized values we believed than in a flight underground. We were offering a value system couched in the language of science.

The main purpose of science is simplicity and as we understand more things everything is becoming simpler.

Pure phenomenology claims to be the science of pure phenomena. This concept of the phenomenon which was developed under various names as early as the eighteenth century without being clarified is what we shall have to deal with first of all.

The ever quickening advances of science made possible by the success of the Human Genome Project will also soon let us see the essences of mental disease. Only after we understand them at the genetic level can we rationally seek out appropriate therapies for such illnesses as schizophrenia and bipolar disease.

What we must understand is that the industries processes and inventions created by modern science can be used either to subjugate or liberate. The choice is up to us.

Honest pioneer work in the field of science has always been and will continue to be life's pilot. On all sides life is surrounded by hostility. This puts us under an obligation.

The violent reaction on the recent development of modern physics can only be understood when one realises that here the foundations of physics have started moving and that this motion has caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science.

It should be mandatory that you understand computer science.

I have a better internal and intuitive understanding of folklore and myth than science and technology so in that way fantasy is easier.

I landed a job with Roger Corman. The job was to write the English dialogue for a Russian science fiction picture. I didn't speak any Russian. He didn't care whether I could understand what they were saying he wanted me to make up dialogue.

I did although I didn't read from page 1 to page 187 but I read chunks of it. I did a little bit of science when I was in the university so I was able to understand the graphs and pie charts and stuff like that. It was extremely dry.

That which today calls itself science gives us more and more information and indigestible glut of information and less and less understanding.

The method of political science is the interpretation of life its instrument is insight a nice understanding of subtle unformulated conditions.