The worst thing happens when ideologists are trying to analyse scientific researches.

I believe that there are very few scientists who deliberately falsify their work, cheat on their colleagues, or steal from their students. On the other hand, I am afraid that a great many scientists deceive themselves from time to time in their treatment of data, gloss over problems involving systematic errors, or understate the contributions of others. These are the 'honest mistakes' of science. The scientific equivalent of the 'little white lie' of social discourse. The scientific community has no way to protect itself from sloppy or deceptive literature except to learn whose work is suspect as unreliable.

Scientists try to eliminate their false theories, they try to let them die in their stead. The believer—whether animal or man—perishes with his false beliefs.

In reality, experimenters are cussed individuals, eager to prove the theoreticians wrong whenever possible.

Science is always trying to prove itself wrong, because that's the quickest route to finding what's actually going on.

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood of inane papers that now constitutes "scientific progress" in many areas.

Too many theorists have a tendency to ignore facts that contradict their convictions.

If historians and linguists sometimes display great ingenuity in explaining away (or just ignoring) facts inconvenient to their pet theory, this should be seen as merely a case of the universal tendency to stick to established beliefs until the evidence to the contrary becomes really overwhelming. Scientists - in any field - abhor the disorder created by information which is incompatible with the established theory, and therefore rightfully continue to assume that a second look will smoothen this initial incompatibility and “domesticate” the new information. They have a very functional kind of immunity to facts disturbing the paradigm which underlies their research.

Scientists, animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless, constitute an interesting subject for study.

Only sneaky people and impostors can oppose the progress of sciences and can discredit them, because they are the only ones to whom the sciences do harm.

Scientists are not known for the graces of courtesy and tact when commenting on the work of others.

[Western scholars who] “do not hesitate to pick such evidence from the Vedas as they think is good for them” and who “are so eager to establish their case that they have no patience to see what absurdities they land themselves in.”

Isn’t that funny: people wearing the mantle of the academic quest for knowledge who denounce the search for knowledge on the dogmatic plea that the outcome is known beforehand? ...Even back then, given all the earlier evidence, everything indicated that something would be discovered. They themselves cannot have been ignorant of this, so their opposition was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the progress of scientific knowledge.

The very desire to seek the truth often causes people, who do not know how it should be sought correctly, to make judgements about things that they do not perceive and in that way they make mistakes.