Don't lie if you don't have to.

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

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?

If you want to succeed in the world, you don't have to be much cleverer than other people. You just have to be one day earlier.

Those individuals who give moral considerations a much greater weight than considerations of expediency represent a comparatively small minority, five percent of the people perhaps. But, In spite of their numerical inferiority, they play a major role in our society because theirs is the voice of the conscience of society.

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.

If one knows only what one is told, one does not know enough to be able to arrive at a well-balanced decision.