murphy: You have often said that the progress of science consists in the discovery of a new mystery the moment one thinks that something fundamental has been solved. The quantum theory has opened up this big problem of causation. And I really do not think that the matter can be answered very categorically. Of course it is easy enough to see that those who take up a definite stand and say that there is no such thing as causality are illogical, in the sense that you cannot prove any such statement either by experiment or by appeal to the direct dictates of consciousness and common sense in its defence. But, all the same, it seems to me that the burden is on the determinists at least to indicate the direction in which the old formulation of causality will have to be revised in order to meet the needs of modern science.
planck: As to the first point, that about the discovery of new mysteries. This is undoubtedly true. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Music and art are, to an extent, also attempts to solve or at least to express the mystery. But to my mind the more we progress with either the more we are brought into harmony with all nature itself. And that is one of the great services of science to the individual.

And there are some really big questions that we need answers to. Our current theory of what the world is made from down at the fundamental level is known as the “standard model” of particle physics—a deceptively boring name for one of humankind’s greatest intellectual achievements. Developed over decades through the combined efforts of thousands of theorists and experimentalists, the standard model says that everything we see around us—galaxies, stars, planets, and people—is made of just a few different types of particles, which are bound together inside atoms and molecules by a small number of fundamental forces. It’s a theory that explains everything from why the Sun shines to what light is and why stuff has mass. What’s more, it’s passed every experimental test we’ve been able to throw at it for almost half a century. It is, without a doubt, the most successful scientific theory ever written down.
All that said, we know that the standard model is wrong, or at the very least seriously incomplete. When it comes to the deepest mysteries facing modern physics, the standard model simply shrugs or offers up a bunch of contradictions instead of answers. Take this for starters. After decades of painstakingly peering into the heavens, astronomers and cosmologists are pretty well convinced that 95 percent of the universe is made of two invisible substances known as “dark energy” and “dark matter.” Whatever they are—and to be clear we haven’t got much of a clue about either of them—they’re definitely not made from any of the particles in the standard model. And as if missing 95 percent of everything wasn’t bad enough, the standard model also makes the rather startling assertion that all the matter in existence should have been wiped out in a cataclysmic annihilation with antimatter in the first microsecond of the big bang, leaving a universe with no stars, no planets, and no us.
So it’s pretty obvious that we are missing something big, most likely in the form of some as-yet-undiscovered fundamental particles that could help explain why the universe is the way it is.

Les épidémies de zoonoses et de maladies à transmission vectorielle sont liées aux pertes de biodiversité, mesurés par le nombre d’espèces sauvages menacées ou par la densité du couvert forestier. Donc, si on résume : plus de biodiversité signifie plus de pathogènes, mais moins de biodiversité signifie plus d’épidémie infectieuses.

We are the victims of an age when men of science are discredited, and only a few remain who are capable of engaging in scientific research. Our philosophers spend all their time in mixing true with false and are interested in nothing but outward show; such little learning as they have they extend on material ends. When they see a man sincere and unremitting in his search for the truth, one who will have nothing to do with falsehood and pretence, they mock and despise him.

La contemplation prolongée de la Joconde ne nous donne pas le talent de Vinci.

夫、人間の浮生なる相をつらつら観ずるにおほよそ、はかなきものは、この世の始中終まぼろしの如くなる一期なり。されば、いまだ萬歳の人身を、うけたりといふ事を、きかず。一生すぎやすし。いまにいたりて、たれか百年の形體をたもつべきや。我やさき、人やさき、けふともしらず、あすともしらず。をくれ、さきだつ人はもとのしづく、すゑの露よりも、しげしといへり。
されば、朝には、紅顔ありて、夕には、白骨となれる身なり。すでに、無常の風きたりきぬれば、すなはち、ふたつのまなこ、たちまちにとぢ、ひとのいき、ながくたえぬれば紅顔むなしく變じて、桃李のよそほひを、うしなひぬるときは、六親眷属あつまりて、なげきかなしめども、更に、その甲斐あるべからず。
さてしもあるべき事ならねばとて、野外にをくりて、夜半のけぶりと、なしはてぬれば、たゞ白骨のみぞのこれり。あはれといふも、中々おろかなり。
されば、人間のはかなき事は、老少不定のさかひなれば、たれの人も、はやく後生の一大事を、心にかけて、阿弥陀仏を、ふかく、たのみまいらせて、念仏まうすべきものなり。あなかしこあなかしこ。

（なぜ情報が正しく伝わらず、安心を求めるのか）
放射線は見えない。分かりにくい。あおられる、皆の口コミで、「危ない」と広がる。「水道水が危ない」となり、ペットボトルの買いだめに走る。集団ヒステリーに近い形で、パニックになる。
そうしたものに対して私たちは無防備だった。「正しいことを言えば、通じる、分かってくれる、大丈夫だ」と思っていました。しかし、実際には叩かれる。それに対して、ブロックしたり、ウソの情報、間違った情報をつぶすという考えは頭になかった。まずは危機管理、パニックを抑えることから始めた。この点は、非常に反省しています。これが私のリスク・コミュニケーションの最大の欠点。ただ、これだけ長く続くとは思わなかった。

正しいことというのは、その人が思っているほど相手には受け入れられていないことがけっこうあります。そればかりか正しいことを言われると、しんどくなってしまいます。
……当然反論はしにくい。でも反発はしたくなるんですね。反論はしづらいけれど気持ちのうえでは反発する。といって面と向かって反発したらかえってしんどくなると思うから、不承不承黙りこんでしまう。するとなおさらしんどくなる。悪循環です。
「タバコは健康に良くないよ」。それはそうでしょう。そんなこと、わかってますよ。でも、だからなんなの？　と相手は思っているかもしれません。
……いくら相手のことをわかっているつもりでも、相手が本当のところどう考えているかといったことは実際にはわかりません。人の心というのは闇の中です。ですから結局、正しいことというのも自分の世界の中での判断でしかないのです。
……けれど、どうしても白黒をはっきりさせたいというタイプの人がいますね。そういう人はなにかと衝突してしまう。議論になったときも、なんとしてでも勝とうとする。
でもそういう生き方ってしんどいだろうなあと思います。およそ人望のある人の生き方ではないでしょうね。

研究に最低限求められるのは、「正しさ」です。求められる手続きや妥当性を満たしていなければ、リジェクトの対象になってしまいます。
では、正しければいいのかというと、正しさは「衛生要因」なのです。マイナス評価には繋がれど、プラスにはならない。正しくなければツッコまれるけど、正しくても「だから何」「当然でしょ」って言われてしまう。。。

ウクライナ政府はこれまで「毎月の財政赤字は月50億ドルだ」としていた。これですら欧米諸国が直ちに支援できる金額を大きく上回っていたが、今回提示した金額はその2倍に近い。
ウクライナ政府は追加資金の使途について、何百万人もの人々の緊急収容設備の設置や住宅修繕、失業者への最低生活保障などを挙げている。
ロシアの侵攻以来、600万人以上のウクライナ人が欧州などに逃れたが、そのうち300万人以上が既に帰国している（7月11日付ロイター）。避難民の9割は女性や子供であり、「ウクライナでは以前から人身売買を巡る犯罪が問題になっていたが、その状況は急速に悪化している」との懸念が急速に高まっている。
帰国したものの路頭に迷うウクライナ人に「助けの手」を差し伸べるための支援であるため、できる限り早期に実施する必要があるが、援助する側の西側諸国にとって極めて頭が痛い問題が浮上している。
日本ではあまり知られていないが、ウクライナは世界に冠たる「腐敗国家」だからだ。

I went to a garden party
To reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories
Play our songs again
When I got to the garden party
They all knew my name
No one recognized me
I didn’t look the same

But it’s all right now
I learned my lesson well
You see, you can’t please everyone
So you got to please yourself

So much of what we imagine to be new is old; so many of the seemingly novel illnesses that afflict modern society are really just resurgent cancers, diagnosed and described long ago. Autocrats have risen before; they have used mass violence before; they have broken the laws of war before.

最後になって読み間違いに気づく

According to Nagarjuna Nirvana which was advised by Buddha as absolute Truth is sunyata (emptiness). Nagarjuna defends that for understanding of the subject sunyata (emptiness) first it must be make clear and comprehend that what sunya (being empty) is. As it was mentioned before one by one every being, even emptiness itself is empty. Here what means by empty is something not being in something, being empty concern of being non-exist. As stated in Nagarjuna, this thing which is not being exist in other thing itself is svabhava (substance). Shortly by Nagarjuna being empty be identified as not including substance in itself. In this direction Nagarjuna asserts in his MMK that non-of the beings have substances in themselves. In line with Nyaya doctrine svabhava is something that does not depend on anything or occur, non-changeable, nonconceptual, non-comprehensible, stable, ineffable something which does not contains any varieties. According to Nagarjuna just because of that it is not possible to say anything about its existency. So, no bhavas (beings) includes svabhavas. As Nagarjuna mentions, being empty does not mean non existency at all. Emptiness itself is the cause of interdepended existency. Nagarjuna says that every being does asset win in some determined relations between each other. In other way to put this, everything coarise contingently and dependently to eachother. These conditional situations do appear as qualities, reasons, results, and etc. Every being does come to being with some qualities and combined between each other.

　
Quantum mechanics extends this relativity in a radical way: all variable aspects of an object exist only in relation to other objects. It is only in interactions that nature draws the world.

影に祈りながら 歩き続ける
生きる夢を見て 年老いてゆく
目先のことよりも 大事なのは
誰も見ない 遠くのこと

森の奥深くで 木が倒れる
途切れなく 水が流れる
書き留めることができないのは
失われてゆく時間のせいなのか

どこにいたとしても
なにをしたとしても
君が消えることはない
聞こえない音を風が伝える

権力者のいない国を見つけ
戦いのないところに住んで
諍いや言い争いを忘れ
武器を持たずに暮らす

人がこき使われるところを捨て
人が自然と戯れるところに行く
真実のない人たちを忘れ
優しい人たちを信じる

公平とか公正とか言わず
侮辱も軽蔑もされず
無関心が許される社会で
陽を浴びて静かにすごす

音のない世界を楽しみ
色のない世界で遊ぶ
向こう側の世界を思い浮かべながら
こちら側の世界を愛し続ける

どうしたらと
そう言いかけて僕は
どうしてもと
口にした

なぜと考えるのをやめて
どうしたらと考える
誰かを思うのをやめて
君のことだけを思う

どんな難解な哲学も
時間をかけて理解しようとすれば
理解できないことはない
そうでなくても
理解したと思うことはできる
でも 君は
そして 君のガーディアン・エンジェルは
どんなに時間をかけても
理解を超えていて
理解したと思うことすらできない

適応は真実に勝るとか
運動が感情になったとか
いろいろ言ってみたところで
惑わされようと
惑わされないでいようと
理解の枠のなかのこと
でも どんな適応も
そして どんな感情も
君には勝てないし
君のガーディアン・エンジェルにも勝てない

君がしてきたことに
そして 君のガーディアン・エンジェルがしてきたことに
ただただ脱帽する
というか
脱帽するしかない

人はいろいろな色を出す
　正直な色
　真心の色
　素直な色
　裏のない色
　真面目な色
　ひたむきな色
　偽りのない色
　誠意のある色
　嘘をつかない色

僕はどんな色を出しているのか
そんなことを
しばらく黙って考えた

僕の出す色は
僕の本来の色は
本当の自分は
なんなのか

君はたくさんの色を重ねながら
君らしく生きている

僕はどんな色を出して
どうやって生きているのだろうか
　他人を傷つけてしまう色
　濁った色
　嘘の色
そんなのは色じゃない

僕もまともな色を出したい
きれいな色を奏でたい

2500年くらい前に
私の心は石でないから
転がすこともできない
と詠んだ人がいて
それが詩経に収められて
後世に伝わることになって

1500年くらい前に
私の心は石でないから
転がすこともできない
というところを読んだ人が
石は無常なものの象徴だって
言い出したりして

800年すこし前に
二条院讃岐という人が
石に寄する恋という題で
私の袖は干潮のときにも見えない沖の石みたいに
だれも知らないだろうけど乾くまもない
って石の無常を詠んで

300年くらい前に
二条院讃岐は
歌のうまかった人だったって
恋多き人だったって
つらい人生を歩んだ人だったって
そんなことが言われだして

私たちは
2500年前の
いったいなにを知っていて
1500年前の
いったいなにを知っていて
800年前の
いったいなにを知っていて
300年前の
いったいなにを知っているかって
そう問えば
じつはなんにも知らないんだって
ぜんぶが想像でしかないんだって
そういう答えが返ってくる

2500年前に
私の心は石でないから
転がすこともできない
と詠んだ人が
なにを思っていたのか
1500年前に
それを読んだ人が
なぜ石が無常なものの象徴だって
思ったのか
800年前に
二条院讃岐は
なにを思ってあの歌を詠んだのか
300年前の人は
二条院讃岐の
なにを知っていたというのか

私たちのように
300年前の人も
800年前の人も
1500年前の人も
2500年前の人も
なにも知らない
それでも定説は
まるで真実かのように
語り継がれる

そもそも「自粛」を他人に強制するって、強烈な自己矛盾です。だって自粛とは、自分からやるものであるはずで、他者がとやかく言うものではない。それを他者に求めてしまう源泉には何があるのか。それこそ、今僕らが直面している「コロナ」がもたらしたものです。
コロナのために、僕らは「自粛を強制されざるをえない毎日」を送っています。上にも書いたように、自粛とは自ら決めることなのですから、自粛しないという選択もありえる。でも僕らは自粛するんです。なぜか。それは「他者の監視の目」が怖いからです。どこにいるかもわからない、他者のことを気にして、たかだか数十メートルゴミを捨てに外に出るのにマスクを付ける。マスクには予防効果があるというより「みんながつけているから」ということへの暗黙の同意を表象するエクスキューズとして、マスクを付ける。こうして、あの懐かしい「パノプティコン」が、全世界を席巻してしまっているんです。コロナというこの病は、僕らの世界を、全て「相互監視」の世界に変えてしまいました。個人だけではない。国同士でさえ、閉ざした扉の内側から互いを監視し、その行動をつぶさに見張っている。
このどこにも逃げ場がない抑圧の強烈さが、自分の内側に不穏な種をまくんです。「なんであいつはマスクをしていないんだ」「なぜあいつは自粛せずに海に行ってるんだ」なぜ、なぜ、なぜ。その感情の成れの果てが「自粛警察」です。本来、他者に強制するものではないはずの自粛を強要する存在。でも、その際立った矛盾にも関わらず、自分もまた、不満を抱えていることが薄っすらと自覚される。このままではまずい。自身が「自粛警察」なんていうグロテスクな存在にならないために、僕らはやらねばならないことがある。

One of the greatest triumphs of the natural sciences is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Combining spectacular creativity, brilliant reasoning, bold conjectures and dramatic experimental confirmation, it seems to be all that science should be. But what if Einstein was wrong? The history of science is full of theories that once seemed ‘right’, but which we now know are ‘wrong’. Famously, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, atoms are not the smallest particles, and Mars has no canals on it. Some of today’s science seems so outrageous that surely it is just a matter of time before today’s beliefs are superseded and discarded. So why shouldn’t Einstein be wrong?
Well, most scientists believe that eventually Einstein will be proven ‘not right’. But ‘not right’ does not mean ‘wrong’, as we realized when we considered the way that models work in science. This can lead to confusion because we tend to think of science as black and white. We can argue about shades of grey in the arts, or perhaps the social sciences, but we tend to think of ‘truth’ and ‘certainty’ in physics. However, this may be incorrect. Dividing the scientists into the ‘bad guys’ (who tried hard, but got it wrong) and the ‘good guys’ (who got it right) is a little too simple.

Unlike physics or chemistry, medicine is not a pure science. When we call it an applied science, it implies only principles of pure science are applied in medicine. Even the results obtained from sophisticated tools may be different. One pathologist may opine about a particular case as malignant, which may not be corroborated if some other colleague examines it. Hegde has rightly mentioned that scientific truths are not true for all times, unlike truths in the field of the art of medicine in science. Today’s truth may be tomorrow’s folly. The half-life of truth in medicine is short. There is a saying: Half of what is true today will be proven to be incorrect in the next five years. Unfortunately we don’t know which half that is going to be.
A small example can be discussed here: the formulation of oral rehydration salts. WHO adopted the new ORS (low sodium, low glucose) formula to fight diarrhoea among under five children. This change became necessary after studies conducted in five developing countries. Similarly, with surgical procedures. Many of them become outdated and surgeons adopt newer procedures to treat various problems. For example, the concept of a ripe cataract is outdated. Today, ophthalmologists opine that cataracts should be removed when they cause symptoms by dissolving and removing the cataractous lens with ultrasound (often referred to as phacoemulsification). A clear, synthetic lens is then put in place. The surgical procedure called Thiersh operation in treating prolapsed rectum has become obsolete. Delorme’s operation is now the preferred operation.
Management of diseases, even diagnostic methods and ideas on causation of a particular disease, also change with passage of time.

　
All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.
　

« Soyons lucides : ce n’est pas demain que le climat et la biodiversité seront préservés “quoi qu’il en coûte” »

「敵と共に共生する、反対者とともに統治する」というのがデモクラシーです。だから公人たる者は反対者たちの意向も代弁して集団の利益を代表するのが仕事であって、自分の支持者の利益を代表するわけではない。それがいまや、デモクラシーというのは多数決のことだというシンプルな理解が支配的になった。選挙結果が51対49だったら、敗けた49についてはまったく配慮する必要がないと公言するような人物が首長になったり議員になったりしてる。彼らは自分が公人であるという自覚がない。自分の支持者を代表しているだけなら、「権力を持った私人」でしかない。
デモクラシーの原点に立つなら、公人たる者は、自分の個人的な思いは痩せ我慢してでも抑制して、異論と対話して、反対者と共生する作法を学ばなければいけないと思います。

　
Le bonheur est la plus grande des conquêtes, celle qu’on fait contre le destin qui nous est imposé.
　

C’est cela l’amour, tout donner, tout sacrifier sans espoir de retour.
　

Tout ce que je sais de plus sûr à propos de la moralité et des obligations des hommes, c’est au football que je le dois.
　

La démocratie, ce n’est pas la loi de la majorité, mais la protection de la minorité.
　

That is how people usually behave with numinosities, and rightly so, for in one respect they are true, in another untrue. Numinous experience elevates and humiliates simultaneously. …
Wherever the psyche is set violently oscillating by a numinous experience, there is a danger that the thread by which one hangs may be torn. Should that happen, one man tumbles into an absolute affirmation, another into an equally absolute negation. Nirdvandva (freedom of opposites) is the Orient’s remedy for this. I have not forgotten that. The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong. The numinosum is dangerous because it lures men to extremes, so that a modest truth is regarded as the truth and a minor mistake is equated with fatal error. Tout passe—yesterday’s truth is today’s deception, and yesterday’s false inference may be tomorrow’s revelation. This is particularly so in psychological matters, of which, if truth were told, we still know very little. We are still a long way from understanding what it signifies that nothing has any existence unless some small—and oh, so transitory—consciousness has become aware of it.

Traduttore, traditore est une expression italienne signifiant littéralement : « Traducteur, traître », soit : « Traduire, c’est trahir » (« all translation is treason »). Il s’agit d’une paronomase, expression qui joue sur la ressemblance entre les deux mots. Elle est couramment utilisée dans d’autres langues que l’italien, en raison de sa concision et du jeu de mots.
Le fait de comparer un traducteur à un traître signifie que la traduction d’un texte d’une langue dans une autre ne peut jamais respecter parfaitement le texte de l’œuvre originale. Beaucoup de polyglottes préfèrent lire une œuvre en version originale car ils veulent la découvrir telle qu’elle a été créée par l’auteur. Dans un cas extrême, traduire un poème en le modifiant pour garder les rimes altère singulièrement l’œuvre du poète.

The cultures that surrounded societies of the day turned this wisdom into implicit knowledge. Anyone who grew up in them couldn’t help but be exposed to this knowledge, whether through customs, socioeconomic systems, or simply through the education they received.
This example actually explains how much of our knowledge grows. We discover something, and if it’s useful, we build societal systems to accommodate that discovery. Finally, these systems make that knowledge available to everyone within the culture as it flows and pollinates.
Much of what is obvious today is only so because we are born into an existing system that contains this knowledge. The hard work has been done for us.
This fact, however, poses an issue. Because we don’t have to do the work of discovering many things for ourselves, we often overlook their value.
As a result, we are surrounded by important truths that we simply ignore.

The beauty and the curse of human knowledge are that it often doesn’t have to be completely right to be useful. That’s why, if it works, it’s hard for us to see why and how it might be wrong.
For example, when Einstein finalized the Theory of General Relativity, it disproved a lot of Newton’s work. It painted a more accurate picture of what was actually going on. That said, it doesn’t mean that Newton’s laws aren’t still highly usable and relevant to most activities.
Over time, we get closer and closer to the truth by being less wrong. We will likely never be completely right in our ability to understand the world. There is way too much complexity.
There is a chance that even the Theory of General Relativity and our take on Evolution will one day be viewed as being as elementary as we now see some of Newton’s work.
Science is always wrong, and assigning boundaries to what we think we know is how we limit the possibility of an advancing future. It’s worth being careful about how you define truth.

A famous, old quote by the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus says: “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” In other words, we live in a universe of change: matter changes, the mind changes, and the interaction between them changes.
This change is neither predictable, nor consistent. Parts of reality, those that abide by the laws of physics, have a mathematical harmony that we can trust, but as soon as you mix in observers with subjective experiences, this trust, at least in the broader context, gets clouded away by uncertainty.
Living with uncertainty, then, brings forth a question: What do we do about truth? If we can’t be sure that there is ever anything fixed and concrete to hold onto, no foundation other than the simplicity of change and impermanence, is there any hope we might capture some aspect of what could be considered eternally true beyond the confines of a systematic, logical framework — something not bound by specific questions and answers?

Il n’y a rien de plus complet qu’un couple qui traverse le temps et qui accepte que la tendresse envahisse la passion.

One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn’t exist…..Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist.
(So next time someone complains that you have made a mistake, tell him that may be a good thing. Because without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist.)

If you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don’t throw it away.

En mode journalistique, c’est l’info qu’on angle. Angler une info, c’est opérer une stratégie dans sa communication. Du filet, neutre, de l’agence de presse à l’édito, tout papier est nécessairement anglé. Peu importe la qualité du signataire et son degré d’implication, la notion est ici technique, avec pour constance une base de travail, le média, et un destinataire, le lectorat.

Get rid of all the cleaners, rubbish collectors, bus drivers, supermarket checkout staff and secretaries, for example, and society will very quickly grind to a halt. On the other hand, if we woke up one morning to find that all the highly paid advertising executives, management consultants and private equity directors had disappeared, society would go on much as it did before: in a lot of cases, probably quite a bit better. So, to begin with, workers need to reclaim a sense of pride and social worth. Doing so would be a big step forward in making the case that the wages and conditions of low-paid jobs must be improved in order to reflect the importance they have in all of our lives.

The next time you watch network news or read online news, pay attention to the ratio between the reporting of what happened and the speculation about what might happen. Are you pleased with the ratio? If so, what satisfaction do you get from the “would” and “could” and “might” and “maybe”? Is it the same satisfaction derived from reading utopian and dystopian fiction? If so, why not leave speculations to the novelists (or fortune tellers) and the reporting of facts to the journalists? It is essential, I believe, to keep these tasks separate.
Because the muddling of epistemological categories like truth, fiction, lie, conspiracy and conjecture changes how we behave politically, it is incumbent on us to revisit these categories with care and to ensure that serious journalists make a concerted effort to maintain strong distinctions among them.

深山弁護士：なぜ笑ってるんですか？
大友検事正：いやぁ、君が随分得意気な顔をしていたからね、つい。ふふふ。
深山弁護士：事実が見つけられず真犯人が見つかっていなかったら、石川さんはあなた達に殺されていたかもしれない。
大友検事正：我々検察は被告人の犯罪を証明する立場にある。我々の努力の結果有罪になったとしたら、裁判所がそう判断したということだ。我々が殺したなどとは聞き捨てならないな。心外だよ。
深山弁護士：裁判所の判断に、大きな有罪のバイアスをかけるのはあなたたちですよ。
大友検事正：いやいや勘違いしている。我々は被害者のために犯罪を犯した人間を許すことはできない。この社会の正義を全うする使命がある。
深山弁護士：正義とか真実とかって言う、100人いたら100通りの考えがあるようなもの、僕は信じないですよ。ある日突然、僕はあなたたちに父を奪われた。その日を境に全てが一変した。あんたはその歪んだ正義とやらで、何人の人生を狂わせるんだよ。冤罪事件で加害者にされた人間も、犯罪の被害者なんだ。僕はその立場に立ってずっと弁護を続ける。あなたはあなたの正義というものを貫くというのであれば、僕は事実というものを信じてあなたの前に立ち続けますよ。

When the time came to apply for college, I decided against physics and other technical fields, and ended up at the Stockholm School of Economics, focusing on environmental issues. I wanted to do my small part to make our planet a better place. Alas, I soon grew disillusioned, concluding that economics was largely a form of intellectual prostitution where you got rewarded for saying what the powers that be wanted to hear. Whatever a politician wanted to do, he or she could find an economist as advisor who had argued for doing precisely that. Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to increase government spending, so he listened to John Maynard Keynes, whereas Ronald Reagan wanted to decrease government spending, so he listened to Milton Friedman.

Basically, the assumption has always been that that there are material things that move around subject to the constraints of geometry. There is change subject to order. Science — or at least physics — has been about establishing how those changes take place and describing them mathematically. Every now and then they lead to a dramatic new way in looking at the world, but the rules of the game have always been the same really, going right back to geometry and ancient astronomy.
I personally believe the world is still probably very much richer than we imagine, and that we still may well be only just scratching the surface of it.

Probatio diabolica (devil’s proof) is a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof. Where a legal system would appear to require an impossible proof, the remedies are reversing the burden of proof, or giving additional rights to the individual facing the probatio diabolica.
The Devil’s Proof is the logical dilemma that while evidence will prove the existence of something, the lack of evidence fails to disprove it.
In essence, the opposing statement’s lack of proof makes the statement true in some sense. This connects with the idea that, while substantial evidence may prove the devil’s existence, there is no evidence that denies the devil’s existence; therefore, one cannot deny the devil’s existence.

僕が20才になった時君に会い
君が僕のすべてだと思ってた
すてきな君を欲しいと思い求めていた
君と僕が教会で結ばれて
指輪かわす君の指　その指が
なんだか僕は見飽きたようで　いやになる
限りないもの　それが欲望
流れ行くもの　それが欲望

J’entends tous les hommes vanter la magnificence du spectacle de la nature, mais j’en trouve fort peu qui la sachent voir.

ユートピアとは、贋物の一つもない社会をいう。あるいは真実の一つとない社会でもいい。

They say that Understanding ought to work by the rules of right reason. These rules are, or ought to be, contained in Logic; but the actual science of Logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man’s mind.

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Science is not a dogmatic body of doctrine. It is an open system of knowledge that establishes probable truths that are subject to continual revision. The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped?

残念ながら私は天才ではないので　いわば器用貧乏タイプだと自分では思っているので　その器用貧乏の貧乏の部分を　貧しい部分を埋めるための作業が　お稽古事であったりとか　ちょっと旅に出てその現地を覗いてくるとか　（器用だとは思ってるってことですか？）　私はそれがコンプレックスかもしれないですね　（できちゃうってこと？）　あの　できちゃうというか　本当に表面だけ　あるいは初動だけはそれなりにできてしまうので　うーん　できちゃうというか　本当になんでしょうね　本当に表面だけなんです　そのできちゃうのが　そこに深みがないんですよね　自分で思うのは　何一つ自分で成し得ていない気がするんですね　足りないなあと思いますし　うーん　

なんで続けてるんでしょうね　普通に考えたらおかしいですよね　人前でね　大声出したりね　笑ったりね　わめいたり　泣き叫んだりって　普通の大人はしないことですよね　それを我々　人前でして　いわば嘘を生業としてるんですけども　でもなんかその嘘のなかに　どれだけ真実を込められるか　その嘘をどれだけ真実に見せられるか　そこに賭けています　

Ein Künstler und ein Anwalt versuchen zu begreifen, was Wahrheit ist … Ferdinand von Schirachs neues Buch ist ein Künstlerroman, ein Justizdrama und am Ende ist es eine Beschreibung der Abgründe des Menschen. Sebastian von Eschburg verliert als Kind durch den Selbstmord seines Vaters den Halt. Er versucht sich durch die Kunst zu retten. Er zeigt mit seinen Fotografien und Videoinstallationen, dass Wirklichkeit und Wahrheit verschiedene Dinge sind. Es geht um Schönheit, Sex und die Einsamkeit des Menschen. Als Eschburg vorgeworfen wird, eine junge Frau getötet zu haben, übernimmt Konrad Biegler die Verteidigung. Der alte Anwalt versucht dem Künstler zu helfen – und damit sich selbst. Schirach schreibt über ein aktuelles gesellschaftliches Thema, das den Leser zwingt, grundsätzliche Entscheidungen zu treffen. Aber dieses Buch ist viel mehr: Schirach hat den Roman eines Lebens geschrieben, lakonisch, poetisch, berührend.

法とモラルがちがうように、真実と現実も別物だ

Truth and reality were entirely different things.

… τὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν …

All entities move and nothing remains still.
 
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.

• Una cosa creata non è mai inventata e non è mai vera: è sempre e sempre se stessa.
• Un linguaggio diverso è una diversa visione della vita.
• Non faccio un film per dibattere tesi o sostenere teorie. Faccio un film alla stessa maniera in cui vivo un sogno.
• Nulla si sa, tutto si immagina.
• Tutti sanno che il tempo è la morte, che la morte si nasconde negli orologi. L’imposizione di un altro tempo alimentato dall’Orologio dell’Immaginazione, tuttavia, può rifiutare la sua legge. Qui, liberati dalla falce della Morte, si apprende che il dolore è la conoscenza e tutto il dolore della conoscenza.

「普遍的なものなんて、この世にない」と言う人に先ず、本書を読んでもらいたいと思います。別に論駁したいからではないのです。なぜなら、その必要はないからです。この信念は「いかなる普遍的命題も真ではありえない」という最も傲慢な種類の普遍的命題に他ならず、それが真だとすると、まさにそのことによって偽になってしまいます。私が論駁するまでもなく、このような信念は自己論駁的なのです。それにもかかわらず、なぜ、最も洗練された知識人たちをも含めて、現代人の間にこのような倒錯した信念が瀰漫しているのか。私が問いかけたいのは、このことです。

What am I? What kind of entity, what kind of being? To what exactly does the term “I” refer? Since one of the self’s distinctive properties, surely, is its capacity for self-consciousness, you would think that if it knew anything, it would know its own nature. Yet the self is a problem and puzzle to itself. A theory should explain both the self’s special awareness and its continuing mystery, even to itself.
Our desire to know our natures is not solely theoretical. This knowledge by itself will not settle the question of how we ought to live, but in fixing the range and limits of the possibilities open to us, it determines what alternatives we choose among when we choose how to live and be.

The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief.
Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing to bear the label of “irrational” or “having the worse arguments,” he can skip away happily maintaining his previous belief.

It would, in my opinion, be absolutely by the trueness that they are telling, and I don’t mean the sticking to fact because facts and truth don’t really have much to do with each other. It’s to stick to the fundamental truth of man’s struggle within the human dilemma. He can be a bad writer, he can — I mean by that he could be a bad punctuator grammarian — but he’s still a first-rate writer if the people that he’s portraying follow the universal patterns of man’s behavior inside the human condition.

利害は錯綜し、敵味方も相結び、
外国の金銭は人らを走らせ
もはや戦いを欲せざる者は卑劣をも愛し、
邪まなる戦のみ陰にはびこり
夫婦朋友も信ずる能わず
いつわりの人間主義をたつきの種とし
偽善の団欒は世をおおい
力は貶せられ、肉は蔑され、
若人らは咽喉元をしめつけられつつ
怠惰と麻薬と闘争に
かつまた望みなき小志の道に
羊のごとく歩みを揃え、
快楽もその実を失い、信義もその力を喪い、
魂は悉く腐蝕せられ
年老いたる者は卑しき自己肯定と保全をば、
道徳の名の下に天下にひろげ
真実はおおいかくされ、真情は病み、
道ゆく人の足は希望に躍ることかつてなく
なべてに痴呆の笑いは浸潤し
魂の死は行人の額に透かし見られ、
よろこびも悲しみも須臾にして去り
清純は商われ、浮蕩は衰え、
ただ金よ金よと思いめぐらせば
人の値打は金より卑しくなりゆき、
世に背く者は背く者の流派に、
生かしこげの安住の宿りを営み、
世に時めく者は自己満足の
いぎたなき鼻孔をふくらませ、
ふたたび衰えたる美は天下を風靡し
陋劣なる真実のみ真実と呼ばれ、
車は繁殖し、愚かしき速度は魂を寸断し、
大ビルは建てども大義は崩壊し
その窓々は欲求不満の蛍光灯に輝き渡り、
朝な朝な昇る日はスモッグに曇り
感情は鈍磨し、鋭角は摩滅し、
烈しきもの、雄々しき魂は地を払う。

Realism about scientific theories and realism about normative moral propositions each begin with a semantic thesis: there are true statements in the category in question and the true ones are true independently of whether anyone thinks they are true, and also are true independently of whether anyone would come to believe them if they thought about the question in a certain way. There are two declarations of independence here.
The two realisms I want to discuss here defend the semantic theses just mentioned in an indirect way. They don’t directly address the class of all scientific theories or the class of all moral statements, but rather single out special subsets of each. We have good reason to think that certain scientific theories are true because the hypothesis that they are true provides the best explanation for why those theories accurately predict what we have observed. And we likewise have good reason to think that certain normative moral statements are true because those statements provide the best explanations of some of the (non-normative) observations we have made.

マンデラ大統領は就任に際して、過去を乗り越えて新たな国の建設に全ての国民が参加することを促した。それと同時に、過去の人権侵害事件についての真相を明らかにし、そのうえで和解することを求めた。報復は、更なる報復を呼び、国を分裂に導く。その悪循環を断ち切り平和を築くために、国民の勇気ある行動を訴えた。こうしてできたのが「真実和解委員会」である。
ここでも理想と現実の隔たりがあったと言われる。深刻な弾圧、殺人、拷問に加わった人びとの公聴会での陳述は、真実を曲げ、自己弁護にすぎないものがあり、誠実な改悛に基いていないものもあったとされる。また、深刻な人権侵害に関わった者を赦免することに対して、犯罪を不問に付すものとして異論が唱えられることもあった。和解の難しさはあきらかであった。
しかし、長年武力紛争を経てきた多くの国で、負の連鎖を止め、平和をもたらすために、この「真実和解委員会」がモデルになったのも事実である。ネルソン・マンデラは、国民の間の深刻な亀裂を乗り越え、和解による平和の実現そして国の新たな出発を可能にしたことで、偉大な指導者として後世に名を残すことになった。

The subjective thinker’s form, the form of his communication, is his style. His form must be just as manifold as are the opposites that he holds together. The systematic eins, zwei, drei is an abstract form that also must inevitably run into trouble whenever it is to be applied to the concrete. To the same degree as the subjective thinker is concrete, to the same degree his form must also be concretely dialectical. But just as he himself is not a poet, not an ethicist, not a dialectician, so also his form is none of these directly. His form must first and last be related to existence, and in this regard he must have at his disposal the poetic, the ethical, the dialectical, the religious. Subordinate character, setting, etc., which belong to the well balanced character of the esthetic production, are in themselves breadth; the subjective thinker has only one setting—existence—and has nothing to do with localities and such things. The setting is not the fairyland of the imagination, where poetry produces consummation, nor is the setting laid in England, and historical accuracy is not a concern. The setting is inwardness in existing as a human being; the concretion is the relation of the existence-categories to one another. Historical accuracy and historical actuality are breadth.

All victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances have a right to truth.
Truth is a vital response to the crimes:

• For the direct victims to know the whole truth about the crimes they suffered and the reasons behind it, as well as have their suffering publicly acknowledged. Moreover, truth is necessary to correct any false accusations made against them in the course of the crime.
• For family members, particularly of those killed or disappeared, to find out what happened to their loved-one and to establish their whereabouts.
• For the affected society to know the circumstances surrounding and reasons that led to violations being committed to ensure that they will not be committed again, and to have their shared experiences acknowledged and preserved.

In more than 30 countries, truth commissions have been established as official, temporary, non-judicial fact-finding bodies to investigate a pattern of abuses of human rights, including the crimes, and to establish the truth. Most conclude their work with a final report containing findings of fact and recommendations.

Marilyn Scales, 52, of New York, who spent time in prison for selling drugs in the 1990s, said that telling the truth on job applications had made her virtually unemployable. “When I answer that question honestly,” she said, “I never get a call back.”

This lesson, that our human speech is naught,
Our human testimony false, our fame
And human estimation words and wind.

一将功成りて万骨枯る

What millions died that Caesar might be great?

What is it about crappy reporting and asteroids?
The culprit this time is the UK’s Telegraph. In its search to become ever more Daily Mail-ian, it ran an article about an asteroid called 1950 DA with this headline:

Huge asteroid set to wipe out life on Earth – in 2880

Along with a not-so-subtle (but cool) piece of artwork of a gigantic asteroid impacting the Earth:   →

Yeah. The only problem with this: It’s very, very unlikely the asteroid will whack us in 2880, so at best that headline is hugely misleading. And this ain’t “at best.”

Justice in a man is like justice in a city (a polis, or city-state). He then argues that a just city is one in which there is harmony, cooperation, and a division of labor between all the castes. Farmers farm, carpenters build, and rulers rule. All contribute to the common good, and all lament when misfortune happens to any of them.
But in an unjust city, one group’s gain is another’s loss, faction schemes against faction, the powerful exploit the weak, and the city is divided against itself. To make sure the polis doesn’t descend into the chaos of ruthless self-interest, Socrates says that philosophers must rule, for only they will pursue what is truly good, not just what is good for themselves.

The concept of good judgment. This line of work can itself be broken down into three subcategories: work on world politics, styles of reasoning in individuals and groups, and alternative functionalist metaphors for judgment. …
The work on alternative functionalist metaphors explores how our judgments of judgmental biases and errors inevitably rest on assumptions about the goals people are trying to achieve by thinking, feeling, and acting as they do. What looks like an error when we posit that people are intuitive scientists (trying to understand the world) or intuitive economists (trying to maximize utility in competitive markets) may look quite defensible, even adaptive or appropriate when we posit that people are intuitive politicians (trying to maintain good relations with key constituencies) or intuitive theologians (trying to protect sacred values against secular encroachments) or intuitive prosecutors (trying to deter violations of the normative order).

Quand tout le monde a tort, tout le monde a raison.

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter lies. You might say it puts the “psych!” in “encyclopedia”. It’s sort of like Congress or Parliament, but unlike Congress or Parliament, we do have a sense of humor. Nonetheless, this is one of the only factual pages, before everything turns into a puddle of utter confusion and disarray. Savor it. And for the love of Sophia, we know you like disarray, (and confusion) but stop adding confusion to this non-confusing page which leads to confusion, and possibly disarray. Which we wish to stop. Non-non-confusion, that is. Not disarray. Or is it the other way around?

Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas.

Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid though it need not necessarily occur in reality. Despite this it figures in the theory as an unassailable fundamental fact…If, for instance, I determine the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and get an average weight of 145 grams, this tells me very little about the real nature of the pebbles. Anyone who thought, on the basis of these findings, that he could pick up a pebbles of 145 grams at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searched he would not find a single pebble weighing exactly 145 grams. The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way.

The search for the truth for truth’s sake is the mark of the historian.

原子力発電とはウラン(一部はプルトニウム)の核分裂で発生するエネルギーを発電に利用するシステムである。そのため、エネルギーを得る一方で、核分裂生成物の生成が避けられない。広島に落とされた原爆の爆発力は 16 キロトン(1 万 6000 トン)であり、その時に核分裂したウランは 800g であった。今日では一般的になった 100 万 kW の原発の場合、1 年間に 1 トンのウランを燃やす。そのため、広島原爆が撒き散らしたものの 1000 倍以上の核分裂生成物(死の灰)を毎年生む。
原発は「トイレのないマンション」と呼ばれる。なぜなら、つかの間の華美な生活を求める一方で、それが不可避的に生む廃物の始末の手段を持たないからである。日本には現在 52 基、世界には 400 基を超える原発が稼動しているが、それらが生み出す膨大な核分裂生成物をどう始末したらいいのか、原子力開発が始まって半世紀たった今なお分からない。生み出す廃物の後始末も知らないまま、とにかく利便だけを求めて走ってきてしまった愚かさに暗澹とする。
ただ、廃物の始末をどうするかという問題に加えて、原子力発電にはもう一つ深刻な問題がある。運転中の原発での事故である。原発が機械であり、人間が誤りを犯す存在である以上、原発とて事故と無縁ではいられない。そして、原発の内部に蓄積している放射能が想像を絶するほど厖大であることが、この問題の核心である。

WORLD-CLASS Makes the list because Donald Trump, who is decidedly not, has almost single-handedly run it into the ground. All of his casinos, golf courses, hotels and other concentrators of showy square-footage are world class, even those that ended up in bankruptcy. He is also self-declared in that realm. “I am the evidence,” he said, attacking wind turbines in Scotland that threaten his golf interests. “I am a world-class expert in tourism.” He promised that his world-class private investigators in Hawaii would expose the shocking truth of President Obama’s birth. A better use for them would be back in Scotland, on the Loch Ness case.
BEST PRACTICES Just below “world-class” in the category of crutch words used to enhance mundane tasks. As a rule, if you can imagine anyone in office casual using a particular term in a presentation, it’s best to keep it under the fluorescent lights of a meeting room. By some peculiar osmosis, what happens in management seminars keeps infecting normal speech. I asked my neighbor what kind of tomatoes to grow this year, and she went on a long discussion of “botanical best practices.” I put potatoes in the ground.

Whether it’s trying to convince others that something is more true, more virtuous, or more desirable–all communication is rhetoric in action.

If you’re not attempting to get someone to see, feel, think, or act in a particular manner, why bother communicating at all?

Maybe I don’t believe things myself, as well. Truth is such a transient thing.

Penser, c’est dire “non”.

Career Day didn’t help me because the people that were talking sounded miserable and tired.

天下皆知美之為美，斯惡已；皆知善之為善，斯不善已。
故有無相生，難易相成，長短相較，高下相傾，音聲相和，前後相隨。
是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教。
萬物作焉而不辭，生而不有，為而不恃，成功不居。
夫唯不居，是以不去。

A blog devoted to on-the-ground reporting around the world.

This blog is all about “ground truth.” The observations, analysis, notes and musings posted here are based on facts gathered in the field from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the Americas. We highlight the work of GlobalPost’s team of correspondents and other journalists, bloggers, photographers and videographers around the globe who are out there getting at the “ground truth.”
The term is actually a scientific concept defined by NASA as part of the calibration process of satellite imagery. When NASA measures something with a satellite, an employee on the ground takes the same measurement. That human measurement is known as “ground truth.” If the results differ, the “ground truth” has greater credibility than the satellite does.
In the digital age, as we are bombarded with so much information from afar, GlobalPost takes a similar approach in its journalism, valuing the idea that being there on the ground and calibrating events in human terms is the key to getting it right. We believe in “ground truth.” And this blog is dedicated to that belief.

• 「信者」とは疑う事を放棄した人間の事である。
• 事実はひとつだけ。真実は人の数だけ。
• 暗闇をのぞき見る者は等しくまた暗闇からも覗かれているということを忘れてはならない。
• 昨日正しかった事が今日正しいとは限らない。間違っていた事が間違っているとも限らない。
• 何かを得るってことは、何かを失うこと。
• 宗教の木には排他の実がなる、その中には争いの種が詰まっている。
• 危険な兵器などない、危険な人間がいるだけ。銃は人を殺さない、人が人を殺すのだ。
• 神仏を尊びて、神仏に頼らず。
• 神はいない。神を欲しがってる人がいるだけ。
• 神はいない。神という言葉を利用して他人を服従させようとする人がいるだけ。
• 人が騙されるのは信じたからではない。信じたかったから騙されるのである。
• テレビで言っていることや新聞に書いている事は「現実」。でも、「真実」ではない。

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

In this essay I shall be concerned with declarative, interrogative and imperative sentences. What do they mean ? Under what circumstances may they be said to be true, and under what circumstances false? When is their utterance an honest remark and when is it a lie?
Such an enumeration of questions might suggest that I hold other speech forms than the declarative sentence to be classifiable as true or as false. Such indeed is the case. I hope to show why and how interrogatives and imperatives, as well as declaratives, are to be classified as true or false.

Politicians often misuse science for political ends and to pursue their own agenda. Science approaches issues in a non-biased way and draws conclusions based on observations. Politicians like to ignore that or trumpet the opinions of a few fringe people. Take evolution. The truth is that evolution is not in doubt. Neither is global warming. The attacks on global warming are no different than the attacks the cigarettes companies used to say that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Those same politicians don’t doubt science when it comes to cellphones, jets and medical technology, but they question evolution and global warming. After all, aerodynamics and electrodynamics are just theories, too.

哲学は欧米人だけの思考法である

We tend to overestimate what we can do on short time scales, but I think we massively underestimate what we can do on longer time scales.

Be these people either Conservatives or Socialists, Yellows or Reds, the most important thing is — and that is the point I want to stress — that all of them are right in the plain and moral sense of the word. . . I ask whether it is not possible to see in the present social conflict of the world an analogous struggle between two, three, five equally serious verities and equally generous idealisms? I think it is possible, and that is the most dramatic element in modern civilization, that a human truth is opposed to another human truth no less human, ideal against ideal, positive worth against worth no less positive, instead of the struggle being as we are so often told, one between noble truth and vile selfish error.

Einstein: “What I admire most about your art is that’s universal… You don’t say any word and the whole world understands you!”

Chaplin: “But your glory is greater… The world admires you while no one understands you!”

• Без любви жить легче. Но без нее нет смысла.
• У меня нет всего, что я люблю. Но я люблю всё, что у меня есть.
• Не слушайте тех, кто говорит дурно о других и хорошо о вас.
• Мир движется вперёд благодаря тем, кто страдает.
• Степень правдивости человека есть указатель степени его нравственного совершенства.
• Один из самых обычных и ведущих к самым боль­шим бедствиям соблазнов есть соблазн словами: «Все так делают».
• Все великие перемены в жизни одного человека, а также и всего человечества, начинаются и совершаются в мысли. Для того, чтобы могла произойти перемена чувств и поступков, должна произойти прежде всего перемена мысли.
• Одно из самых обычных заблуждений состоит в том, чтобы считать людей добрыми, злыми, глупыми, умными. Человек течет, и в нем есть все возможности: был глуп, стал умен, был зол, стал добр, и наоборот. В этом величие человека. И от этого нельзя судить человека. Какого? Ты осудил, а он уже другой. Нельзя и сказать: не люблю. Ты сказал, а оно другое..

There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times.

Most of us, including myself, do bad things not because we derive great material benefit from them or strongly believe in them, but because they are the easiest thing to do. Many Bad Samaritans go along with wrong policies for the simple reason that it’s easier to be a conformist. Why go around looking for ‘inconvenient truths’ when you can just accept what most politicians and newspapers say? Why bother to find out what is really going on in poor countries when you can easily blame it on corruption, laziness or the profligacy of their people?

Our aim as scientists is objective truth; more truth, more interesting truth, more intelligible truth. We cannot reasonably aim at certainty. Once we realize that human knowledge is fallible, we realize also that we can never be completely certain that we have not made a mistake.
There are uncertain truths — even true statements that we may take to be false — but there are no uncertain certainties.
Since we can never know anything for sure, it is simply not worth searching for certainty; but it is well worth searching for truth; and we do this chiefly by searching for mistakes, so that we have to correct them.

(How close did Franklin actually come to deciphering the structure of DNA?)  She was very close. She had all the parameters of the helical backbone. She was the one who figured out that there were two forms of DNA, which made solving the whole structure possible. She had figured out that backbone of the A form is antiparallel. It wouldn’t have been very long before she figured out that the B form backbone was antiparallel as well.

(What did Watson actually get out of Photo 51 beyond the idea that the “X” signified a helix?)  After Watson saw Photo 51, he went out to dinner with Wilkins and pressed him for the interpretation of it—the 34-angstrom measurements and so on. At that early date Watson didn’t know how to interpret a diffraction photo, other than that an “X” meant helix. In terms of getting measurements out of it, he hadn’t the foggiest—at that point. It was Wilkins who told him how to interpret it.

Facts have something of a life of their own. They are by no means entirely subject to viewpoint: What one likes, or does not like, does not affect what is. Facts may be annoying, they may hamper the flow of a good story, or even contradict it; but when they are swept under the rug in order to let the tale get on, they remain facts, locatable, discernible, stubborn, and there for the seeking. In one instance, and in my mind, a question arose concerning the accuracy of some of Watson‘s facts, simply because he presented in The Double Helix a character named ‘Rosy’ who represented, but did not really coincide, with a woman named Rosalind Franklin whom I had known, admired, and liked very much.
For we are presented with a picture of a deplorable situation. The progress of science is being impeded, and by what? Why, by a woman, to begin with, one labeled as subordinate, meant—or even destined—to occupy that inferior position in which presumably all women belong, even those with good brains.
But perhaps the progress of science is also being impeded somewhat by a man as well, one too inhibited by decency to be properly ruthless with female upstarts, and so to get on with the job.