It’s the same with science. Take Einstein’s theory and experiments of gravity you mentioned earlier. I assume you have not studied and understood the mathematics in your own mind, and then conducted your own experiments to verify the equations?
Like, I don’t think the world is flat, but I admit I have not done any experiments to verify that the earth is round. Like every bit of science I take to be true yet have not verified myself, I simply trust that it is true.
There are basically two reasons:
- Though not perfect, I trust the integrity of scientists on the whole. I dont think they’re out to manipulate me for their own goals.
- I trust the method of science. Science is open about assumptions, methods and conclusions. In theory, anyone can attempt to replicate a study to see for themselves.
However, you have to admit that in practice science involves a lot of trust. Due to time and resource constraints, you probably could not replicate and know for yourself all the major accomplishments of science (physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, etc.).
Even most scientists don’t understand the mathematics of the statistical techniques they use in their fields. Instead, they trust the mathematicians and the programmers who built their software.
Regarding the EBTs:
-
Thought not perfect, I trust the integrity of the EBTs as a whole. I don’t think they are out to deceive me for their own goals.
-
I trust the method laid down in the EBTs. It seems to me like something I can be replicate and apply in my own life to see whether it’s true or not.
But there is a way to verify it; it involves developing the appropriate mental faculties through meditation / mental development.
The principle of this is not different than needing a microscope to see bacteria or a telescope to see distant stars. Microscopes, telescopes and other scientific instruments enhance our perceptual abilities. There’s no a priori reason why mental development should not be able to do the same.
Take e.g. history about the Roman empire. There’s a degree of uncertainty about historical events. Did Nero play the fiddle while Rome burned? How do you choose which Rome-aspects to believe and which not? Why not reject the whole thing altogether?
Maybe Nero was just invented to explain the fact that Rome almost burned down? Maybe Nero is just a product of the socio-cultural historical climate of that time?
My point here is, why should the EBTs meet a standard that is much higher and more rigorous than e.g. history?