Help a brother out?

There's a great quote by one of The Big 3 Greek Philosophers (EDIT: Reference to Cicero removed) which I can paraphrase by memory as:

"I consider it rather better for myself to be proven wrong than to prove someone else wrong, just as I'm better off being cured of a disease than curing someone of one."

I can't find the quote, or from which of the Three it is.

Anybody know? Or know where to look? I've already tried varying google search techniques and perused the Wikiquotes article on each of them.

I was recently reminded of two pieces of cached wisdom about wisdom itself.

First, that "Wisdom is not knowledge, but the application of knowledge."

And "The wise learn from others what the foolish learn from experience, or not at all."

Upon the mention of the first, I was immediately reminded of the essence of rationality, further expounded on by the second. My thoughts then jumped to the negative reactions I have become accustomed to from those who hear me refer frequently to "rationality." My salient dedication to the idea evoked in their minds such as to induce the intonation of all the cliched wisdom against the "cold" thinking of those with whom I had (in their minds) associated myself, the Spocks of the world.

And here was a potential alternative. I may be able to communicate to their minds more nearly what I mean by "rationality" by using the word "wisdom" in its place. I suspect the term will seem them more palatable, even noble.
And when I explain all those things which once led them to begrudgingly ration out a measure of respect for rationality, the result shall be rather to confirm in their minds the power, pleasure, and purpose of the pursuit of wisdom.

And so I intend to frame my purposes in that light. Here's hoping...

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/05/immortal-but-damned-to-hell-on-earth/394160/

With such long periods of time in play (if we succeed), the improbable hellish scenarios which might befall us become increasingly probable.

With the probability of death never quite reaching 0, despite advanced science, death might yet be inevitable.

But the same applies also to a hellish life in the meanwhile. And the longer the life, the more likely the survivors will envy the dead. Is there any safety in this universe? What's the best we can do?

The team reports fully restoring the memory function of 75 percent of the mice they tested it on, with zero damage to the surrounding brain tissue.

"We’re extremely excited by this innovation of treating Alzheimer’s without using drug therapeutics."

The team says they’re planning on starting trials with higher animal models, such as sheep, and hope to get their human trials underway in 2017.

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-alzheimer-s-treatment-fully-restores-memory-function

Discussion article for the meetup : BYU-I

Discussion article for the meetup : BYU-I

Does anyone know of an apparently defensible response to the following question?

How does a theist distinguish by any imaginable experience between an omnipotent and loving Being, and an omnipotent Being that just wants you to believe it is loving?

Or, if you prefer:

Out of all potential omnipotent beings that want you to believe that they are loving, what observation can distinguish those which actually are loving?

Also, are any of you aware of another who has posed this question?

EDIT: I'm confused at the apparent disapproval of many. Is it because the question refers to religion?

I'm developing an autodidactic curriculum of sorts. A study of learning might merit precedence.

What are the best articles, books, and videos you know on how to learn learning and why would you recommend those in particular?

A thousand gracias.

Discussion article for the meetup : BYU-I Meetup

Discussion article for the meetup : BYU-I Meetup

The lesson I have just recently gleaned from the 81st chapter of HPMOR along with Harry's observations of the sense of doom he feels around Voldemort.

Chapter 81: "For whatever reason, then, most of the Wizengamot has never walked the path that leads to powerful wizardry; they do not seek out what is hidden. For them, there is no why. There is no explanation. There is no causality. The Boy-Who-Lived, who was already halfway into the magisterium of legend, has now been promoted all the way there; and it is a brute fact, simple and unexplained, that the Boy-Who-Lived frightens Dementors. Ten years earlier they were told that a one-year-old boy defeated the most terrible Dark Lord of their generation, perhaps the most evil Dark Lord ever to live; and they just accepted that too."

All the information I needed was there all along, but only now do I perceive the pattern this information indicates.

In retrospect, I believe it was obvious that Quirrell was Voldemort. But, at least in my own mind, the oft-repeated note of the sense of doom was filed under the same list of acausal phenomena as was Harry's Dementor-scaring by the Wizengamot.

What I ought to have done, what I was fully capable of doing (if hindsight bias is not plaguing me (not too much, anyway)), was thinking:

"Ah, a sense of doom which is felt mutually and only by Harry and Quirrell. Why should that be?"
And then, still more in the Stanford Prison Experiment Arc

"Ah, I see, it all falls into place. Contact between Harry and Quirrell causes mutual destruction. Why should that be (the phrase which was missing from my mind in every instance of the manifestation of the sense of doom)? They must be connected somehow. Why, yes, actually we already know that they are. As Harry pointed out, he and Quirrell have similar minds; Quirrell is his superior in his very own way of thinking, very much as if Quirrell was a grown-up version of Harry. No, that doesn't sound quite right, I don't see Harry growing up that way. Just a grown-up version of his dark side, I suppose. Why does Harry have a dark side, anyway? (This was another phenomenon I classified as acausal, filed along with the Just So Stories). Nobody else does, what's different about Harry? He's had it his whole life, could he have been born with it? No, no apparent reason for his parents to have such a child, perhaps just early in life. Just early in his life, I suppose. Now what could it be...

And here, I hope it is clear that I am belaboring the point, that I probably could have leapt to the conclusion with far fewer steps of consideration in between.

And so, having read of the cognitive error, and comprehended it, I did not realize that I had been committing it so recently; not until months after all the necessary information was already inputted did my processing manage to output the answer.

Just a quick question.

Harry James Potter Evans-Verres and the Methods of Rationality: Chapter 18

HJPEV: So, Professor, can you tell me how many electrons are in the outermost orbital of a carbon atom?"

Severus's smile widened. "Four," he said. "It is a useless fact which no one should bother writing down, however."

Did Snape really know that, or did he read Harry's mind?

As to the possibility, this passage,  "Harry stared into Severus's cold gaze and remembered that the Sorting Hat had warned him not to meet anyone's eyes while thinking about - Harry dropped his gaze to Severus's desk." occurs after that already quoted.

(If I do something wrong here, which merits a downvote, would you mind specifying the error in question?)