I never learn anything talking. I only learn things when I ask questions.

Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer.

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.

I think national issues play into gubernatorial races less than obviously in Senate and Congressional races. Much less. They tend to be more decided by personality leadership qualities and by state or local issues. They still have some effect no question about it but not as much as Senate and Congressional races.

The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it no real success is possible no matter whether it is on a section gang a football field in an army or in an office.

Is it right to probe so deeply into Nature's secrets? The question must here be raised whether it will benefit mankind or whether the knowledge will be harmful.

If we would have new knowledge we must get a whole world of new questions.

The existence of inherent limits of experience in no way settles the question about the subordination of facts of the human world to our knowledge of matter.

All handling by IPCC of the Sea Level questions have been done in a way that cannot be accepted and that certainly not concur with modern knowledge of the mode and mechanism of sea level changes.

The monopoly of science in the realm of knowledge explains why evolutionary biologists do not find it meaningful to address the question whether the Darwinian theory is true.

If we wish to discuss knowledge in the most highly developed contemporary society we must answer the preliminary question of what methodological representation to apply to that society.

You should not ask questions without knowledge.

The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge.

Doubt is the middle position between knowledge and ignorance. It encompasses cynicism but also genuine questioning.

There's no question that as science knowledge and technology advance that we will attempt to do more significant things. And there's no question that we will always have to temper those things with ethics.

Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

Any knowledge that doesn't lead to new questions quickly dies out: it fails to maintain the temperature required for sustaining life.

In my professional work with the Agency by the late '70s I had come to question the value of a great deal of what we were doing in terms of the intelligence agency's impact on American policy.

People don't want to believe that technology is broken. Pharmaceuticals robotics artificial intelligence nanotechnology - all these areas where the progress has been a lot more limited than people think. And the question is why.

Pat Roberts and I both feel very strongly that when we get to Iran that we can't make the same mistakes. We have to ask the questions the hard questions before not afterwards and get the right intelligence.

I think we need to ask serious questions about how we engage militarily when we engage militarily and on what basis we engage militarily. What kind of intelligence do we have to justify a military engagement?

Here's the teaching point if you're teaching kids about intelligence and policy: Intelligence does not absolve policymakers of responsibility to ask tough questions and it doesn't absolve them of having curiosity about the consequences of their actions.

There's a lot of neuroscience now raising the question 'Is all the intelligence in the human body in the brain?' and they're finding out that no it's not like that. The body has intelligence itself and we're much more of an organic creature in that way.