The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas
may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place
in the endeavor of science.

Ideology—of any kind—and science are at best inappropriate bedfellows. Science may indeed uncover unpleasant truths, but the critical thing is that they are truths. Any effort, whether wicked or well-meaning, to conceal truth or impede its disclosure is destructive. Too often in our free society, scientists willing to take on questions with political ramifications have been made to pay an unjust price.

His most important idea is that we should question the source of our beliefs, not the belief itself. Because most of our beliefs are based on our or other people’s perception.

Even in science to raise fundamental questions can be very disturbing. Somebody could feel, 'I'd like to have the answer to this right away, and get out of this unpleasant state of disturbance', and he would never get anywhere.

There is no logical reason, however, why, in the unfolding of scientific ideas, several theories may not offer alternative but equally valid and important accounts of a particular aspect of nature. Why must some of these theories be rejected almost as a matter of course? It could be objected that if the number of alternative theories became too large, then the whole scientific enterprise would become excessively diffuse and diluted. It is certainly true that without any established limits, ideas do tend to diverge from each other. However, there is also a natural tendency within scientific thinking for ideas to converge as well. Intelligent and creative perception of the different theories may, for example, give rise to new metaphors in which ideas are gathered together and the similarities and differences between them are explored and unfolded.

You can certainly suppress an idea but you cannot kill it. All you can do is put it under pressure, which quite naturally increases its potential energy. The very idea of suppressing any form of speech or expression sounds kind and generous and open-minded and supportive of the oppressed. When put into action, however, the unintended consequences become evident.

The experiences which we have been studying during this hour (and a great many other kinds of religious experiences are like them) plainly show the universe to be a more many-sided affair than any sect, even the scientific sect, allows for. What, in the end, are all our verifications but experiences that agree with more or less isolated systems of ideas (conceptual systems) that our minds have framed? But why in the name of common sense need we assume that only one such system of ideas can be true?