A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.

The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he's one who asks the right questions.

The aim of the scientist is to express, in as simple a statement as possible, the principles underlying the order and arrangement of phenomena.

If I have learned anything as a scientist it is that one should not make things complicated when a simple explanation will do.

The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making.

Scientists need to exchange ideas in an informal place.

A scientist may not be sure of the answer, but he's often sure he can find one. And that's a condition which is clearly not enjoyed by philosophy.

The aim should be not to “forestall all dissenting voices”, but (a) to “invite meaningful debate”; (b) “to invite the scholarly challenges and ensuing debate that can lead to better insights and closer approximation of the truth”; (c) “to go beyond what can be grasped at first contact, and as a consequence of having to defend perceptions against competing views, to investigate matters more thoroughly”; (d) to “approximate truth more closely”; (d) to “go beyond initial impressions and beyond the validation of preconceived interpretations”; (e) to “embrace the scientific approach of being transparent and vulnerable – transparent by being open to verification in terms of providing supporting evidence and discussing potentially conflicting evidence, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential falsification“; (f) “to evaluate the very different perspectives that are current and thus to reach beyond the differences in perspective, ideology or bias” (HOCK 2005:282-3).

I think that it's important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion.

The physicist may be satisfied when he has the mathematical scheme and knows how to use for the interpretation of the experiments. But he has to speak about his results also to non-physicists who will not be satisfied unless some explanation is given in plain language. Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be the criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.

A real scientist solves problems, not wails that they are unsolvable.

So to make a little quibble of my own, I think the essence of what we want in science are not justified beliefs but good explanations.

That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school — we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards.

For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists...
You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

We can get some relatively clear thought in science. But even there it is not entirely clear because scientists are worried about their prestige and status, and so on. Sometimes they won't consider ideas that don't go along with their theories or with their prejudices. Nevertheless, science is aimed at seeing the fact, whether the scientist likes what he sees or not — looking at theories objectively, calmly, and without bias. To some extent, relatively coherent thought has been achieved better in science than in some other areas of life. Some results flowed out of science and technology which are quite impressive — a great power was released. But now we discover that whenever the time comes to use science we just forget the scientific method. We just say that the use of what scientists have discovered will be determined by the needs of our country, or by my need to make money, or by my need to defeat that religion or merely by my need to show what a great powerful person I am. So we see that relatively unpolluted thought has been used to develop certain things, and then we always trust to the most polluted thought to decide what to do with them. That's part of the incoherence