Quotes About Knowledge

y Tolstói están, por tanto, más cerca de lo que parece y nosotros tenemos la suerte de asistir a sus seminarios siempre que queramos.

abrirnos a la posibilidad de que, al menos en algunos aspectos, fueron más sabios que nosotros».[55]

That aspect of reality of most central concern and importance to human beings is, of course, human beings. And in order to survive and succeed in his fullest capacity as a human being, man must be able to identify his own nature (including his means of knowledge) as well as the nature of the world (or universe) in which he acts.

Casanova was a librarian.

There is more information in one edition of the New York Times than the average person in 17th-century England would have come across in a lifetime.

Information is fleeting. Human records are broken; new particles are discovered; fresh historical documents come to light. Dinosaurs turn out not to be giant grey iguanas after all, but multicoloured feathery proto-birds of all shapes and sizes. Right now, even the daddy of all facts, the Big Bang theory, is looking wobbly.

The truth is more important than the facts. FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT (1867–1959)

A word to the wise ain't necessary, it is the stupid ones who need all the advice. BILL COSBY

Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.

The only defense against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.

No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience.

For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men's opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than constrain others.

They had not done the wild things that had no basis in their understanding of the workings of the body. They had not given quinine or typhoid vaccine to influenza victims in the wild hope that because it worked against malaria or typhoid it might work against influenza. Others had done these things and more, but they had not.

Which raises another question: How does one know when one knows? In turn this leads to more practical questions: How does one know when to continue to push an experiment? And how does one know when to abandon a clue as a false trail?

The nest of college-birds are three, / Law, Physic and Divinity; / And while these three remain combined, / They keep the world oppressed and blind / . . . Now is the time to be set free, / From priests' and Doctors' slavery.

The question "why" is too deep for science. Science instead believes it can only learn "how" something occurs.

Jacob Henle, the first scientist to formulate the modern germ theory, echoed Francis Bacon when he said, "Nature answers only when she is questioned.

They knew so little. So little. They knew only that isolation worked. The New York State Training School for Girls had quarantined itself, even requiring people delivering supplies to leave them outside. It had had no cases.

Man seeks to form for himself, in whatever manner is suitable for him, a simplified and lucid image of the world, and so to overcome the world of experience by striving to replace it to some extent by this image.

And the way one goes about answering a question, one's methodology, matters as much as the question itself. For the method of inquiry underlies knowledge and often determines what one discovers: how one pursues a question often dictates, or at least limits, the answer.

Avery was attacking the most fundamental questions of immunology and, ultimately, genetics. From each failed experiment he learned, perhaps not much but something. And what he was learning went beyond how to fine-tune an experiment. What he was learning from his failures had large ramifications that applied to entire fields of knowledge. One could argue that none of Avery's experiments failed.

how individuals explore nature—how one does science. And the way one goes about answering a question, one's methodology, matters as much as the question itself. For the method of inquiry underlies knowledge and often determines what one discovers: how one pursues a question often dictates, or at least limits, the answer.

Accordingly, no book can actually embody the knowledge of anything of philosophical importance; only a mind can do that, since only a mind can have this capacity to interpret and reinterpret its own understandings.

This is the study of the whole realm of Forms, working out in full detail all the relationships in which the various ones of them stand to one another. So the rise to full life, in our self-absorption into our intellectual origins and natures, is itself an exercise of philosophy, of philosophy at its essential core of active knowledge of Forms.