Philosophers of science constantly discuss theories and representation of reality, but say almost nothing about experiment, technology, or the use of knowledge to alter the world. This is odd, because 'experimental method' used to be just another name for scientific method.... I hope [to] initiate a Back-to-Bacon movement, in which we attend more seriously to experimental science. Experimentation has a life of its own.

Why should there be the method of science? There is not just one way to build a house, or even to grow tomatoes. We should not expect something as motley as the growth of knowledge to be strapped to one methodology.

In each case you settle on an act. Doing nothing at all counts as an act.

The best reaction to a paradox is to invent a genuinely new and deep idea.

Molecular biology has routinely taken problematic things under its wing without altering core ideas.

If you were just intent on killing people you could do better with a bomb made of agricultural fertiliser.

By legend and perhaps by nature philosophers are more accustomed to the armchair than the workbench.