Dialogue Quotes (7 quotes)
A lecture is much more of a dialogue than many of you probably realize.
I would picture myself as a virus, or as a cancer cell, for example, and try to sense what it would be like to be either. I would also imagine myself as the immune system, and I would try to reconstruct what I would do as an immune system engaged in combating a virus or cancer cell. When I had played through a series of such scenarios on a particular problem and had acquired new insights, I would design laboratory experiments accordingly Based upon the results of the experiment, I would then know what question to ask next When I observed phenomena in the laboratory that I did not understand, I would also ask questions as if interrogating myself: Why would I do that if I were a virus or a cancer cell, or the immune system? Before long, this internal dialogue became second nature to me; I found that my mind worked this way all the time.
Scientific reasoning is a kind of dialogue between the possible and the actual, between what might be and what is in fact the case.
The scientific method is a potentiation of common sense, exercised with a specially firm determination not to persist in error if any exertion of hand or mind can deliver us from it. Like other exploratory processes, it can be resolved into a dialogue between fact and fancy, the actual and the possible; between what could be true and what is in fact the case. The purpose of scientific enquiry is not to compile an inventory of factual information, nor to build up a totalitarian world picture of Natural Laws in which every event that is not compulsory is forbidden. We should think of it rather as a logically articulated structure of justifiable beliefs about nature. It begins as a story about a Possible World—a story which we invent and criticise and modify as we go along, so that it ends by being, as nearly as we can make it, a story about real life.
Very few people, including authors willing to commit to paper, ever really read primary sourcescertainly not in necessary depth and contemplation, and often not at all ... When writers close themselves off to the documents of scholarship, and then rely only on seeing or asking, they become conduits and sieves rather than thinkers. When, on the other hand, you study the great works of predecessors engaged in the same struggle, you enter a dialogue with human history and the rich variety of our own intellectual traditions. You insert yourself, and your own organizing powers, into this historyand you become an active agent, not merely a reporter.
Without distance there is no dialogue between the two.
[In geology,] As in history, the material in hand remains silent if no questions are asked. The nature of these questions depends on the school to which the geologist belongs and on the objectivity of his investigations. Hans Cloos called this way of interrogation the dialogue with the earth, das Gesprach mit der Erde.