When a scientist says something, his colleagues must ask themselves only whether it is true. When a politician says something, his colleagues must first of all ask, 'Why does he say it?

Pronouncement of experts to the effect that something cannot be done has always irritated me.

Even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is equal to one genius, is it necessary to go a further step and hold that two morons are better than one genius?

A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify.

When a scientist says something, his colleagues must ask themselves only whether it is true. When a politician says something, his colleagues must first of all ask, 'Why does he say it?

In science it is not enough to think of an important problem on which to work. It is also necessary to know the means which could be used to investigate the problem.

I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius.