Knowledge is no burden.
The SAT is not perfect. We all know smart, knowledgeable people who do badly on standardized tests. But neither is it useless. SAT scores do measure both specific knowledge and valuable thinking skills.
It is our knowledge - the things we are sure of - that makes the world go wrong and keeps us from seeing and learning.
Common knowledge, but important nonetheless
Understanding is the sure and clear knowledge of some invisible thing.
There are two kinds of knowledge, local and universal.
It is not enough to know what is good: you must be able to do it.
It is not time that changes man nor knowledge the only thing that can change someone's mind is love.
Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.
Learning is the knowledge of that which none but the learned know.
In what light soever we regard the Bible, whether with reference to revelation, to history, or to morality, it is an invaluable and inexhaustible mine of knowledge and virtue.
I think if you've suffered, if you've experienced loss, you're probably more open to understanding it and more comfortable talking about it and experiencing it.
It is possible, of course, to operate with figures mechanically, just as it is possible to speak like a parrot: but that hardly deserves the names of thought. It only becomes possible at all after the mathematical notation has, as a result of genuine thought, been so developed that it does the thinking for us, so to speak.
Making good judgments when one has complete data, facts, and knowledge is not leadership - it's bookkeeping
Love, work and knowledge are the well-springs of our life. They should also govern it.
The literary artist will. . . portray what he knows, and little else. Imagination is built upon knowledge, and his dreams will rest upon his facts. He is worth to the world just about what he has learned from it, and no more.
The pretensions of final truth are always partlyan effort to obscure a darkly felt consciousness of the limits of human knowledge.
Knowledge is the only elegance.
It must be conceded that a theory has an important advantage if its basic concepts and fundamental hypotheses are 'close to experience,' and greater confidence in such a theory is certainly justified. There is less danger of going completely astray, particularly since it takes so much less time and effort to disprove such theories by experience. Yet more and more, as the depth of our knowledge increases, we must give up this advantage in our quest for logical simplicity in the foundations of physical theory.
How can the unknown merit reverence? In other words how can you revere that of which you are ignorant? At the same time, it would be ridiculous to propose that what we know merits reverence. What we know merits any one of a number of things, but it stands to reason reverence isn't one of them. In other words, apart from the known and the unknown, what else is there?