Engelsk
Citat
03. november 2007 af
LiL-H (Slettet)
Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote of pre-Revolutionary France: "We have psysicists, geometers, chemists, poets, musicians and printers in plenty; but no citizens"
Hvad menes der med dette citat?
Hvad menes der med dette citat?
Svar #1
03. november 2007 af Erik Morsing (Slettet)
Der menes at alle vil gerne være noget - forfængelighedens kåbe iklæder vi os, uden den føler vi os oversete.
Svar #2
03. november 2007 af LiL-H (Slettet)
Har du tid et øjeblik til at hjælpe mig med at forstå en tekst. Det drejer sig om denne:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of pre-Revolutionary France, “We have physicists, geometers, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and printers in plenty; but no citizens.”
Our goal for the twenty-first century is indeed to have painters, musicians, poets, astronomers, chemists, geometers, and physicists in plenty, and—with Rousseau—to create a world of informed and engaged citizens committed to creative public service.
Whether our students go on to careers in science or not, we count on them to give thoughtful and enlightened attention to the humane uses of science, to the risks that attend new knowledge, and to the responsibilities of scientists and citizens. Like life itself, science is organic, tentative; we may not know enough to give a straight answer; sometimes, Nature can’t be pinned down. In some instances, scientific knowledge can only provide uncertain answers to policymakers; and there are important issues—like moral choices—that science can only inform, not resolve.
The issues of scientific responsibility and integrity are broad and affirmative. Teaching by example is indispensable, but it doesn’t exhaust our obligation to create an awareness of issues and obligations—not only for scientists, but also for the observers, consumers, and patrons of science.
During the millennium just ended, we found the courage to reject Authority. We learned instead to listen to Nature by doing experiments—our inheritance from Galileo, Newton, and others. In fact, Galileo called his experiments cimenti—trials by ordeal. The seventeenth-century gentlemen who founded the Royal Society of London took as their motto Nullius in verba—“Don’t take anyone’s word for anything!” Over three centuries, science has lived by the principle that experiment is the best test.
Anthony Lewis concluded a millennial essay in the New York Times, “[T]here has been one transforming change over this thousand years. It is the adoption of the scientific method: the commitment to experiment, to test every hypothesis. But it is broader than science. It is the open mind, the willingness in all aspects of life to consider possibilities other than the received truth. It is openness to reason.”
When we are at our best—when we are truest to these ideals—we do our best science, and we give our greatest gift to society.
The study of science must not be reduced to accepting what we already know. The strength of science lies in its provisional nature, its open-mindedness, its capacity for doubt and uncertainty. Richard Feynman has written of “the scientific spirit of adventure—the adventure into the unknown, an unknown that must be recognized as unknown in order to be explored ... To summarize it: humility of the intellect.”
Perhaps science’s experience with doubt and uncertainty is its great lesson for humanity. Lawrence Krauss has reminded us that doubt and uncertainty are in short supply—and we need to bring them back to the public stage.
Science changes the way we see ourselves, and our world.
The quantum physicist Niels Bohr said that “The goal of science is the gradual reduction of prejudice.” Progress toward understanding the genome—the map of life—has exposed the illusion of race, illuminated our kinship with other species, shown us what we have in common with a whole range of other living things.
In a call for solidarity with scientists of the developing world, Kofi Annan has written, “… Peacemaking and peacebuilding should never be the exclusive preserve of diplomats and politicians.
“There are deep similarities between the ethos of science and the project of international organization. Both are constructs of reason, as expressed, for example, in international agreements addressing global problems. Both are engaged in a struggle against forces of unreason that have, at times, used scientists and their research for destructive purposes. We share the experimental method; the United Nations, after all, is an experiment in human cooperation. And both strive to give expression to universal truths; for the United Nations, these include the dignity and worth of the human person and the understanding that even though the world is divided by many particulars, we are united as a single human community.”
After an afternoon confronting the weighty challenges and opportunities of scientist’s responsibilities—a citizen’s responsibilities—I’d like to close by celebrating the privilege of being a scientist. The freedom to ask any question, the pleasure of spinning out tales about how Nature might work, the joy of finding things out, the delight of telling others what you have found: it’s a wonderful life!
- Jeg ved godt at den er lang, men bare hovedpunkterne. Jeg er virkelig på bar bund. Håber du kan hjælpe.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of pre-Revolutionary France, “We have physicists, geometers, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and printers in plenty; but no citizens.”
Our goal for the twenty-first century is indeed to have painters, musicians, poets, astronomers, chemists, geometers, and physicists in plenty, and—with Rousseau—to create a world of informed and engaged citizens committed to creative public service.
Whether our students go on to careers in science or not, we count on them to give thoughtful and enlightened attention to the humane uses of science, to the risks that attend new knowledge, and to the responsibilities of scientists and citizens. Like life itself, science is organic, tentative; we may not know enough to give a straight answer; sometimes, Nature can’t be pinned down. In some instances, scientific knowledge can only provide uncertain answers to policymakers; and there are important issues—like moral choices—that science can only inform, not resolve.
The issues of scientific responsibility and integrity are broad and affirmative. Teaching by example is indispensable, but it doesn’t exhaust our obligation to create an awareness of issues and obligations—not only for scientists, but also for the observers, consumers, and patrons of science.
During the millennium just ended, we found the courage to reject Authority. We learned instead to listen to Nature by doing experiments—our inheritance from Galileo, Newton, and others. In fact, Galileo called his experiments cimenti—trials by ordeal. The seventeenth-century gentlemen who founded the Royal Society of London took as their motto Nullius in verba—“Don’t take anyone’s word for anything!” Over three centuries, science has lived by the principle that experiment is the best test.
Anthony Lewis concluded a millennial essay in the New York Times, “[T]here has been one transforming change over this thousand years. It is the adoption of the scientific method: the commitment to experiment, to test every hypothesis. But it is broader than science. It is the open mind, the willingness in all aspects of life to consider possibilities other than the received truth. It is openness to reason.”
When we are at our best—when we are truest to these ideals—we do our best science, and we give our greatest gift to society.
The study of science must not be reduced to accepting what we already know. The strength of science lies in its provisional nature, its open-mindedness, its capacity for doubt and uncertainty. Richard Feynman has written of “the scientific spirit of adventure—the adventure into the unknown, an unknown that must be recognized as unknown in order to be explored ... To summarize it: humility of the intellect.”
Perhaps science’s experience with doubt and uncertainty is its great lesson for humanity. Lawrence Krauss has reminded us that doubt and uncertainty are in short supply—and we need to bring them back to the public stage.
Science changes the way we see ourselves, and our world.
The quantum physicist Niels Bohr said that “The goal of science is the gradual reduction of prejudice.” Progress toward understanding the genome—the map of life—has exposed the illusion of race, illuminated our kinship with other species, shown us what we have in common with a whole range of other living things.
In a call for solidarity with scientists of the developing world, Kofi Annan has written, “… Peacemaking and peacebuilding should never be the exclusive preserve of diplomats and politicians.
“There are deep similarities between the ethos of science and the project of international organization. Both are constructs of reason, as expressed, for example, in international agreements addressing global problems. Both are engaged in a struggle against forces of unreason that have, at times, used scientists and their research for destructive purposes. We share the experimental method; the United Nations, after all, is an experiment in human cooperation. And both strive to give expression to universal truths; for the United Nations, these include the dignity and worth of the human person and the understanding that even though the world is divided by many particulars, we are united as a single human community.”
After an afternoon confronting the weighty challenges and opportunities of scientist’s responsibilities—a citizen’s responsibilities—I’d like to close by celebrating the privilege of being a scientist. The freedom to ask any question, the pleasure of spinning out tales about how Nature might work, the joy of finding things out, the delight of telling others what you have found: it’s a wonderful life!
- Jeg ved godt at den er lang, men bare hovedpunkterne. Jeg er virkelig på bar bund. Håber du kan hjælpe.
Svar #6
03. november 2007 af Erik Morsing (Slettet)
Her, bemærkninger efter hvert afsnit, kan du selv klare de sidste to, prøv også at finde temaet, den røde tråd:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of pre-Revolutionary France, “We have physicists, geometers, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and printers in plenty; but no citizens.”
Den har jeg forklaret, det var i før revolutionens Frankrig det vil sige I tiden omkring 1770-80.
Our goal for the twenty-first century is indeed to have painters, musicians, poets, astronomers, chemists, geometers, and physicists in plenty, and—with Rousseau—to create a world of informed and engaged citizens committed to creative public service.
Her stiller han sig selv I spidsen for borgerne I den hensigt at skabe de nævnte proffesioner, han var jo selv filosof
Whether our students go on to careers in science or not, we count on them to give thoughtful and enlightened attention to the humane uses of science, to the risks that attend new knowledge, and to the responsibilities of scientists and citizens. Like life itself, science is organic, tentative; we may not know enough to give a straight answer; sometimes, Nature can’t be pinned down. In some instances, scientific knowledge can only provide uncertain answers to policymakers; and there are important issues—like moral choices—that science can only inform, not resolve.
Her peger han på, at nok er uddannede mennesker vigtigt for samfundet, men man skal huske på vore begrænsninger, videnskab alene kan ikke løse verdens problemer, vi skal have dygtige politikere, for eksempel kan moralen ikke læres gennem videnskab
The issues of scientific responsibility and integrity are broad and affirmative. Teaching by example is indispensable, but it doesn’t exhaust our obligation to create an awareness of issues and obligations—not only for scientists, but also for the observers, consumers, and patrons of science.
Her siger han, at den videnskabelige moral indbefatter at gore opdagelserne forståeklige for den almindelige befolkning
During the millennium just ended, we found the courage to reject Authority. We learned instead to listen to Nature by doing experiments—our inheritance from Galileo, Newton, and others. In fact, Galileo called his experiments cimenti—trials by ordeal. The seventeenth-century gentlemen who founded the Royal Society of London took as their motto Nullius in verba—“Don’t take anyone’s word for anything!” Over three centuries, science has lived by the principle that experiment is the best test.
Her er naturen I front, vi skal lytte til naturen, det var for øvrigt Rousseau, der kom med den berømte sætning: Tilbage til naturen, som Voltaire gjorde nar ad, ifdet han spurgte:
”Skal vi nu til at kravle på alle fire”
Rousseau er altså en fortaler for naturen frem for kulturen, kulturen er nok vigtig, men naturen er altså grundlaget for al eksistens. I dag ser vi, hvor rigtige hans tanker er, vi er godt i gang med at forurene naturen, så ingen mere kan eksistere på planeten, og jeg tænker, at din lærer har tænkt på netop det.
Eksperimenter frem for teorier, siger han også
Anthony Lewis concluded a millennial essay in the New York Times, “[T]here has been one transforming change over this thousand years. It is the adoption of the scientific method: the commitment to experiment, to test every hypothesis. But it is broader than science. It is the open mind, the willingness in all aspects of life to consider possibilities other than the received truth. It is openness to reason.”
When we are at our best—when we are truest to these ideals—we do our best science, and we give our greatest gift to society.
Den videnskabelige metode, at hengive sig til eksperimenter bliver nævnt endnu en gang.
The study of science must not be reduced to accepting what we already know. The strength of science lies in its provisional nature, its open-mindedness, its capacity for doubt and uncertainty. Richard Feynman has written of “the scientific spirit of adventure—the adventure into the unknown, an unknown that must be recognized as unknown in order to be explored ... To summarize it: humility of the intellect.”
Bagfra: Intellektets ydmyghed, vi skal gore os klart, at vi star overfor noget ukendt, før vi kan begynde at udforske det.
Perhaps science’s experience with doubt and uncertainty is its great lesson for humanity. Lawrence Krauss has reminded us that doubt and uncertainty are in short supply—and we need to bring them back to the public stage.
Det skorter på tvivl og usikkerhed, det må der gore noget ved, siger Lawrence Krauss
Science changes the way we see ourselves, and our world.
Videnskaben er i bevægelse, den ærdrer sig i takt med at vi selv udvikler os
The quantum physicist Niels Bohr said that “The goal of science is the gradual reduction of prejudice.” Progress toward understanding the genome—the map of life—has exposed the illusion of race, illuminated our kinship with other species, shown us what we have in common with a whole range of other living things.
Vidnskabens mål er er den gradvise reduction af forudindtagethed, vi skal altså være åbne for alt nyt.
In a call for solidarity with scientists of the developing world, Kofi Annan has written, “… Peacemaking and peacebuilding should never be the exclusive preserve of diplomats and politicians.
Fred udelukker ikke diplomati og politiseren.
“There are deep similarities between the ethos of science and the project of international organization. Both are constructs of reason, as expressed, for example, in international agreements addressing global problems. Both are engaged in a struggle against forces of unreason that have, at times, used scientists and their research for destructive purposes. We share the experimental method; the United Nations, after all, is an experiment in human cooperation. And both strive to give expression to universal truths; for the United Nations, these include the dignity and worth of the human person and the understanding that even though the world is divided by many particulars, we are united as a single human community.”
After an afternoon confronting the weighty challenges and opportunities of scientist’s responsibilities—a citizen’s responsibilities—I’d like to close by celebrating the privilege of being a scientist. The freedom to ask any question, the pleasure of spinning out tales about how Nature might work, the joy of finding things out, the delight of telling others what you have found: it’s a wonderful life!
Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of pre-Revolutionary France, “We have physicists, geometers, chemists, astronomers, poets, musicians, and printers in plenty; but no citizens.”
Den har jeg forklaret, det var i før revolutionens Frankrig det vil sige I tiden omkring 1770-80.
Our goal for the twenty-first century is indeed to have painters, musicians, poets, astronomers, chemists, geometers, and physicists in plenty, and—with Rousseau—to create a world of informed and engaged citizens committed to creative public service.
Her stiller han sig selv I spidsen for borgerne I den hensigt at skabe de nævnte proffesioner, han var jo selv filosof
Whether our students go on to careers in science or not, we count on them to give thoughtful and enlightened attention to the humane uses of science, to the risks that attend new knowledge, and to the responsibilities of scientists and citizens. Like life itself, science is organic, tentative; we may not know enough to give a straight answer; sometimes, Nature can’t be pinned down. In some instances, scientific knowledge can only provide uncertain answers to policymakers; and there are important issues—like moral choices—that science can only inform, not resolve.
Her peger han på, at nok er uddannede mennesker vigtigt for samfundet, men man skal huske på vore begrænsninger, videnskab alene kan ikke løse verdens problemer, vi skal have dygtige politikere, for eksempel kan moralen ikke læres gennem videnskab
The issues of scientific responsibility and integrity are broad and affirmative. Teaching by example is indispensable, but it doesn’t exhaust our obligation to create an awareness of issues and obligations—not only for scientists, but also for the observers, consumers, and patrons of science.
Her siger han, at den videnskabelige moral indbefatter at gore opdagelserne forståeklige for den almindelige befolkning
During the millennium just ended, we found the courage to reject Authority. We learned instead to listen to Nature by doing experiments—our inheritance from Galileo, Newton, and others. In fact, Galileo called his experiments cimenti—trials by ordeal. The seventeenth-century gentlemen who founded the Royal Society of London took as their motto Nullius in verba—“Don’t take anyone’s word for anything!” Over three centuries, science has lived by the principle that experiment is the best test.
Her er naturen I front, vi skal lytte til naturen, det var for øvrigt Rousseau, der kom med den berømte sætning: Tilbage til naturen, som Voltaire gjorde nar ad, ifdet han spurgte:
”Skal vi nu til at kravle på alle fire”
Rousseau er altså en fortaler for naturen frem for kulturen, kulturen er nok vigtig, men naturen er altså grundlaget for al eksistens. I dag ser vi, hvor rigtige hans tanker er, vi er godt i gang med at forurene naturen, så ingen mere kan eksistere på planeten, og jeg tænker, at din lærer har tænkt på netop det.
Eksperimenter frem for teorier, siger han også
Anthony Lewis concluded a millennial essay in the New York Times, “[T]here has been one transforming change over this thousand years. It is the adoption of the scientific method: the commitment to experiment, to test every hypothesis. But it is broader than science. It is the open mind, the willingness in all aspects of life to consider possibilities other than the received truth. It is openness to reason.”
When we are at our best—when we are truest to these ideals—we do our best science, and we give our greatest gift to society.
Den videnskabelige metode, at hengive sig til eksperimenter bliver nævnt endnu en gang.
The study of science must not be reduced to accepting what we already know. The strength of science lies in its provisional nature, its open-mindedness, its capacity for doubt and uncertainty. Richard Feynman has written of “the scientific spirit of adventure—the adventure into the unknown, an unknown that must be recognized as unknown in order to be explored ... To summarize it: humility of the intellect.”
Bagfra: Intellektets ydmyghed, vi skal gore os klart, at vi star overfor noget ukendt, før vi kan begynde at udforske det.
Perhaps science’s experience with doubt and uncertainty is its great lesson for humanity. Lawrence Krauss has reminded us that doubt and uncertainty are in short supply—and we need to bring them back to the public stage.
Det skorter på tvivl og usikkerhed, det må der gore noget ved, siger Lawrence Krauss
Science changes the way we see ourselves, and our world.
Videnskaben er i bevægelse, den ærdrer sig i takt med at vi selv udvikler os
The quantum physicist Niels Bohr said that “The goal of science is the gradual reduction of prejudice.” Progress toward understanding the genome—the map of life—has exposed the illusion of race, illuminated our kinship with other species, shown us what we have in common with a whole range of other living things.
Vidnskabens mål er er den gradvise reduction af forudindtagethed, vi skal altså være åbne for alt nyt.
In a call for solidarity with scientists of the developing world, Kofi Annan has written, “… Peacemaking and peacebuilding should never be the exclusive preserve of diplomats and politicians.
Fred udelukker ikke diplomati og politiseren.
“There are deep similarities between the ethos of science and the project of international organization. Both are constructs of reason, as expressed, for example, in international agreements addressing global problems. Both are engaged in a struggle against forces of unreason that have, at times, used scientists and their research for destructive purposes. We share the experimental method; the United Nations, after all, is an experiment in human cooperation. And both strive to give expression to universal truths; for the United Nations, these include the dignity and worth of the human person and the understanding that even though the world is divided by many particulars, we are united as a single human community.”
After an afternoon confronting the weighty challenges and opportunities of scientist’s responsibilities—a citizen’s responsibilities—I’d like to close by celebrating the privilege of being a scientist. The freedom to ask any question, the pleasure of spinning out tales about how Nature might work, the joy of finding things out, the delight of telling others what you have found: it’s a wonderful life!
Skriv et svar til: Citat
Du skal være logget ind, for at skrive et svar til dette spørgsmål. Klik her for at logge ind.
Har du ikke en bruger på Studieportalen.dk?
Klik her for at oprette en bruger.