A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Let a hundred flowers blossom and let one hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting the progress of the arts and sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.
Ideas cannot be fought except by means of better ideas. The battle consists, not of opposing, but of exposing; not of denouncing, but of disproving; not of evading, but of boldly proclaiming a full, consistent, and radical alternative.
Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.
When I write a political column for the Chicago Sun-Times, when liberals disagree with me, they send in long, logical e-mails explaining all my errors. I hardly ever get well-reasoned articles from the right. People just tell me to shut up. That's the message: "Shut up. Don't write anymore about this. Who do you think you are?"
Reasoning is the pastime of my whole household, and all this reasoning has driven out Reason.
I don’t attack people. I attack ideas. And some very good people can have some very bad ideas.
I think you can be tough and aggressive with facts in a way that you cannot be tough and aggressive with emotional retorts. Most of the people that try to be tough on TV are really just being emotional and not factual.
You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound.
When a thing is said to be not worth refuting you may be sure that either it is flagrantly stupid - in which case all comment is superfluous - or it is something formidable, the very crux of the problem.
I'm not trying to sign people up to a creed, I'm much more interested in the people that disagree. These ideas are powerful but this isn't mysticism in the ordinary sense to be protected by mumblings about faith and all that. This is the real thing.
Anyone who in discussion relies upon authority uses, not his understanding, but rather his memory.
Academical disputation gives vigor and briskness to the mind thus exercised, and relieves the languor of private study and meditation.
Say, Not so, and you will out circle the philosophers.
When a thing is said to be not worth refuting you may be sure that either it is flagrantly stupid—in which case all comment is superfluous—or it is something formidable, the very crux of the problem.
You need people who have their own views, whose views you respect, whom you can have a productive disagreement with, and work out ideas which you might not have come up with, or who improve on ideas you had.
You cannot imprison an idea. You have to fight it with a better idea.
A powerful idea communicates some of its strength to him who challenges it.
Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.
Where is fancy bred, in the heart or in the head?
Does defending liberalism leave you friendless and perhaps wondering about your breath?
Human beings understand themselves and shape their futures by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the un-sayable, not by bowing the knee whether to gods or to men.
It's not bad at all, getting a Nobel and making so many old fossils explode with rage.
Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.
