While tacit knowledge can be possessed by itself, explicit knowledge must rely on being tacitly understood and applied. Hence all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. A wholly explicit knowledge is unthinkable.

The first thing to make clear is that scientists, freely making their own choice of problems and pursuing them in the light of their own personal judgment, are in fact co-operating as members of a closely knit organization.

But even physics cannot be defined from an atomic topography.

Personal participation is the universal principle of knowing.

I hold that the propositions embodied in natural science are not derived by any definite rule from the data of experience, and that they can neither be verified nor falsified by experience according to any definite rule.

Of course language manifests a belief only if we use its words with the implied acceptance of their appositeness.

No inanimate object is ever fully determined by the laws of physics and chemistry.