Freedom of press is limited to those who own one.

A great literature is thus chiefly the product of doubting and inquiring minds in revolt against the immovable certainties of the nation.

A man who knows a subject thoroughly, a man so soaked in it that he eats it, sleeps it and dreams it- this man can always teach it with success, no matter how little he knows of technical pedagogy.

Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.

In the main, there are two sorts of books: those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read.

The notion that science does not concern itself with first causes - that it leaves the field to theology or metaphysics, and confines itself to mere effects - this notion has no support in the plain facts. If it could, science would explain the origin of life on earth at once - and there is every reason to believe that it will do so on some not too remote tomorrow. To argue that gaps in knowledge which will confront the seeker must be filled, not by patient inquiry, but by intuition or revelation, is simply to give ignorance a gratuitous and preposterous dignity.

The only way to reconcile science and religion is to set up something which is not science and something that is not religion.