That’s always the problem with these forms of obliquitous advice - they are paradoxical. I’m not saying they don’t work or are necessarily to be dismissed because they seem practically impossible because they are on the surface self-limiting. I’m just saying that’s what they all share.
Zen. Buddhism. Sufism. Stoicism. Minimalism. Less is more.
You have to experience it to know it. The anti-thesis of science.
Science is about testing (experiencing) your hypothesis not memorizing dogma. If someone says: “gravity is a thing” then as a scientist you think through the consequences, if something doesn't align with your expectation then you design an experiment. This way you realize the truth yourself, problem is that people use the word 'science' as 'that thing that other people do to find out the truth' (where 'truth' is the thing you are supposed to believe unquestioningly since you are not a priest, sorry.. scientist).
Scientists learn awful lot without checking from books, articles and talks. Each scientist tests and verifies only tiny little part of he or she considers science. And they typically assume that non cutting edge parts are correct, unless there is very strong reason to doubt that.
It does cause too much inertia in some cases and it can be hard to overturn old theories, but it also makes science overall possible.
Zen. Buddhism. Sufism. Stoicism. Minimalism. Less is more.
You have to experience it to know it. The anti-thesis of science.