Wikipedia gets a lot of things wrong.
Errors belong to libraries; truth, to the human mind.
While most of the world's information is beginning to be stored electronically, most of the world's expertise still resides in books.
I don't like to read nonfiction. To me, fact is something I can look up.
Not all knowledge comes from college.
Those fields which most depend upon authoritative opinion for their data least contain known natural law.
Through logic and inference we can prove anything. Therefore, logic and inference, in contrast to ordinary daily living experience, are secondary instruments of knowledge. Probably tertiary.
Particularly since the computerization of the world, the impact of media has grown enormously. The printed books and the printed media have become less important. Why should somebody read Laozi or Confucius if he can Google?
It's not like I'm an Internet geek or anything - I'm of an age where the Internet is not the first thing I think of when I need to find something out.
There are other sources of psychological knowledge, which become accessible at the very point where the experimental method fails us.
Google is where we go for answers. People used to go elsewhere or, more likely, stagger along not knowing.
These two, I say, viz. external material things, as the objects of SENSATION, and the operations of our own minds within, as the objects of REFLECTION, are to me the only originals from whence all our ideas take their beginnings.
Learned men are the cisterns of knowledge, not the fountainheads.
Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it.
Most people acquire most of their knowledge outside school, and in school only insofar as school, in a few rich countries, has become their place of confinement during an increasing part of their lives.
I suppose that every age has its own particular fantasy: ours is science. A seventeenth-century man like Blaise Pascal, who thought himself a mathematician and scientist of genius, found it quite ridiculous that anyone should suppose that rational processes could lead to any ultimate conclusions about life, but easily accepted the authority of the Scriptures. With us, it is the other way 'round
Everything's wrong on Wikipedia.
It wasn't that long ago that I was coming up, but it feels almost ancient that you had to go to the library and you had 'World Book Encyclopedias.'
If we look at the realm of knowledge, how exceedingly small and limited is that part acquired through our own senses; how wide is that we gain from other sources.
Human knowledge consists not only of libraries of parchment and ink - it is also comprised of the volumes of knowledge that are written on the human heart, chiselled on the human soul, and engraved on the human psyche.
For a highly motivated learner, it's not like knowledge is secret and somehow the Internet made it not secret. It just made knowledge easy to find. If you're a motivated enough learner, books are pretty good.
If there is knowledge, it lies in the fusion of the book and the street.
Intuition is for thinking what observation is for perception. Intuition and observation are the sources of our knowledge.
The two operations of our understanding, intuition and deduction, on which alone we have said we must rely in the acquisition of knowledge.
When I hear the deepest truths I speak coming out of my mouth sounding like my mother's, even remembering how I fought against her, I have to reassess both our relationship as well as the sources of my knowing.
