Below is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book that i was reading yesterday and the words resonate very very much with my current exploration. I felt that a person who sincerely looks for the truth automatically starts using ideas and techniques of scientific investigation without having learnt anything about them. Feynman talks about science but one could use the word spirituality here - the point is exploring the truth sincerely.
Excerpts from Richard Feynman's talk on: The Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society
"An interesting question of the relation of science to modern society is just that - why is it possible for people to stay so woefully ignorant and yet reasonably happy in modern society when so much knowledge is unavailable to them?
Incidentally, about knowledge and wonder, Mr. Bernardini said we shouldn't teach wonders but knowledge. It may be a difference in the meaning of the words. I think that we should teach them wonders and that the purpose of knowledge is to appreciate wonders even more...
I want to answer the question as to why people can remain so woefully ignorant and not get into difficulties in modern society. The answer is that science is irrelevant... It isn't that it has to be, but that we let it be irrelevant to society.
The ideas and techniques of scientific investigation:
The first is the matter of judging evidence - well, the first thing really is, before you begin you must not know the answer. So you begin by being uncertain as to what the answer is. This is very, very important...The question of doubt and uncertainty is what is necessary to begin; for if you already know the answer there is no need to gather any evidence about it. Well, being uncertain, the next thing is to look for evidence, and the scientific method is to begin with trials. But another way and a very important one that should not be neglected and that is very vital is to put together ideas to try to enforce a logical consistency among the various things that you know. It is a very valuable thing to try to connect this, what you know, with that, that you know, and try to find out if they are consistent. And the more activity in the direction of trying to put together the ideas of different directions, the better it is.
After we look for the evidence we have to judge the evidence.... it's not right to pick only what you like, but to take all of the evidence, to try to maintain some objectivity about the thing - enough to keep the thing going - not to ultimately depend upon authority. Authority may be a hint as to what the truth is, but is not the source of information. As long as it's possible, we should disregard authority whenever the observations disagree with it. And finally, the recording of results should be done in a disinterested way. That's a very funny phrase which always bothers me - because it means that after the guy's all done with the thing, he doesn't give a darn about the results, but that isn't the point. Disinterest here means that they are not reported in such a way as to try to influence the reader into an idea that's difference than what the evidence indicates.
