Source: Blind Lake (2003), Chapter 22 (p. 258)
“Science has taught us that what we see and touch is not what is really there.”
Source: Information, The New Language of Science (2003), Chapter 5, Abstraction, Beyond concrete reality, p. 35
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Do you have more details about the quote "Science has taught us that what we see and touch is not what is really there." by Hans Christian von Baeyer?
Hans Christian von Baeyer 25
American physicist 1938Related quotes
Ken Wilber
(1949) American writer and public speaker
The Eye of Spirit : An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad (1997)
Context: The integral vision, I believe, is more than happy to welcome empirical science as a part — a very important part — of the endeavor to befriend the Kosmos, to be attuned to its many moods and flavors and facets and forms. But a more integral psychology goes beyond that... With science we touch the True, the "It" of Spirit. With morals we touch the Good, the "We" of Spirit. What, then, would an integral approach have to say about the Beautiful, the "I" of Spirit itself? What is the Beauty that is in the eye of the Beholder? When we are in the eye of Spirit, the I of Spirit, what do we finally see?
Louis Sachar
(1954) American writer of children's books
Source: The Cardturner: A Novel about a King, a Queen, and a Joker
“Nothing ever goes away until it has taught us what we need to know.”
Pema Chödron
(1936) American philosopher
Henri Nouwen
(1932–1996) Dutch priest and writer
The Living Reminder: Service and Prayer in Memory of Jesus Christ (1977)
Context: When we walk in the Lord's presence, everything we see, hear, touch, or taste reminds us of Him. This is what is meant by a prayerful life. It is not a life in which we say many prayers but a life in which nothing, absolutely nothing, is done, said, or understood independently of Him who is the origin and purpose of our existence.
Ray Bradbury
(1920–2012) American writer
The Paris Review interview (2010)
Context: I often use the metaphor of Perseus and the head of Medusa when I speak of science fiction. Instead of looking into the face of truth, you look over your shoulder into the bronze surface of a reflecting shield. Then you reach back with your sword and cut off the head of Medusa. Science fiction pretends to look into the future but it’s really looking at a reflection of what is already in front of us.
Source: The Value of Science (1905), Ch. 5: Analysis and Physics
Context: All laws are... deduced from experiment; but to enunciate them, a special language is needful... ordinary language is too poor...
This... is one reason why the physicist can not do without mathematics; it furnishes him the only language he can speak. And a well-made language is no indifferent thing;
... the analyst, who pursues a purely esthetic aim, helps create, just by that, a language more fit to satisfy the physicist.
... law springs from experiment, but not immediately. Experiment is individual, the law deduced from it is general; experiment is only approximate, the law is precise...
In a word, to get the law from experiment, it is necessary to generalize... But how generalize?... in this choice what shall guide us?
It can only be analogy.... What has taught us to know the true profound analogies, those the eyes do not see but reason divines?
It is the mathematical spirit, which disdains matter to cling only to pure form.<!--pp.76-77