The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language.

The present situation in physics is as if we know chess, but we don't know one or two rules.

The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality "ought to be."

One of the ways of stopping science would be only to do experiments in the region where you know the law. But experimenters search most diligently, and with the greatest effort, in exactly those places where it seems most likely that we can prove our theories wrong. In other words, we are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.

... it is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics. I am sorry, but this seems to be the case.

If science is to progress, what we need is the ability to experiment, honesty in reporting results—the results must be reported without somebody saying what they would like the results to have been—and finally—an important thing—the intelligence to interpret the results.

It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.