Science sometimes improves hypotheses and sometimes disproves them. But proof would be another matter and perhaps never occurs except in the realms of totally abstract tautology. We can sometimes say that if such and such abstract suppositions or postulates are given, then such and such abstract suppositions or postulates are given, then such and such must follow absolutely. But the truth about what can be perceived or arrived at by induction from perception is something else again.

It is, I claim, nonsense to say that it does not matter which individual man acted as the nucleus for the change. It is precisely this that makes history unpredictable into the future.

We do not know enough about how the present will lead into the future.

What is the pattern that connects the crab to the lobster and the primrose to the orchid, and all of them to me, and me to you?

Logic cannot model causal systems, and paradox is generated when time is ignored [as in logic].

Rather, for all objects and experiences, there is a quantity that has optimum value. Above that quantity, the variable becomes toxic. To fall below that value is to be deprived.

There are times when I catch myself believing that there is such a thing as something; which is separate from something else.