There are always alternative interpretations of the same data. It is often the case, however, that the alternatives that are rejected are treated as if they don't exist. But they do. And we should be aware not only of their existence and potential viability, but of the possibility that the hypotheses that we might embrace so strongly today may very well be the rejects of tomorrow.

The really important thing is not to reject anything.

The fact must be expressed as data, but there is a problem in that the correct data is difficult to catch. So that I always say "When you see the data, doubt it!" "When you see the measurement instrument, doubt it! ... For example, if the methods such as sampling, measurement, testing and chemical analysis methods were incorrect, data ... to measure true characteristics and in an unavoidable case, using statistical sensory test and express them as data.

It is easy enough to reject a story because you do not like what it says, but wiser to examine it first, to see what can be learned from it.

Accept only that which stands to your reason. Never accept anything merely because it is preached by some great leader. Test its truth on the touchstone of your intellectual discrimination.

Don’t mistake your assumptions for the truth.

Even if you reject everything, it is always better to know what it is you are rejecting.

If there is no complete agreement between the results of one's work and the experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged.

The theory must not contradict empirical facts,

Respecting things that are difficult to measure, rather than dismissing them as unreal, is not rejecting science. It’s embracing science.

I reject a sole time series of the past as an indication of future performance; I need a lot more than data.

Healthy skepticism is an essential and treasured feature of scientific analysis," Gibbons added. "But willful distortion of evidence has no place at the table of scientific inquiry.

Respect for the truth does not require one to take seriously ideas simply because they are popular or backed by influential people. Once it has become clear that a proposal makes no contribution to our understanding, we are not compelled by tolerance to give it further attention.

I should point out, nevertheless, that even though incomplete data can lead to a false picture, this is far different from the (false) picture obtained by those who choose to ignore empirical data to invent a picture of reality (young earthers, for example), or those who instead require the existence of something for which there is no observable evidence whatsoever (like divine intelligence) to reconcile their view of creation with their a priori prejudices, or worse still, those who cling to fairly tales about nature that presume the answers before questions can even be asked.