Not so.
Pain is just one more feeling to perceive, like joy or sad (sad can be quite painful), and they all pass.
Pain is no different than anything else in existence, it is perceived of 'Mind'.
I'm not sure what purpose this little emotional drama has to do with the subject at hand.While science is a work in progress, it would be deliberately blinkered to deny that researchers have come closer to the truth. These researchers are not fools, not naive, often brilliant, sometimes geniuses. Our ancestors' hard work has brought humanity tremendous advancement in all areas and I personally feel tremendous gratitude towards them for their brilliance, dedication and effort that not only made my life possible, but brought us closer to truth.
As you relinquishing your own ability to think critically for yourself in favor of some ancients who could'? Even though they were wrong about so much, as 'science' is constantly finding?
Quantum is just finding what the Eastern mystics and philosophers have Known for millennia.They had no neurotic need to 'prove' what they Knew/intuited millennia ago.
Science is validating the Easterners every day!
Refuting the Westerners, likewise.
Absolute truth, as Kant and probably every other sane person on the forum (or any forum) would recognise, is not possible.
So, anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is 'insane'.
Okay... You DO realize that you are on a philosophy forum?
Despite your fallacious and emotional reaction, if you'd like to discuss the fallacy of your 'belief' in the impossibility of transcendental Truth, without the emotion, I'd be glad to oblige.
Kant doesn't impress me, so hauling out your tin god means nothing to me. Show me the real cutting edge science, show me YOUR inescapable logic, synthesize your own theory, support it, and I'll listen.
Coming at me with "everyone thinks so" is a sure sign that what you offer is a fallacy and just plain wrong.
After all, we are inside looking out, and thus can only formulate provisional overviews based on what is observable. Then again, if we were outside looking in there would be an equivalent discrepancy, lacking in the internal perspective.
Inside/outside are meaningless and more false distinctions.
What is the boundary of 'inside', the inside of your eyelids?
Your hero worship, your abdication of original critical thought (philosophy), brings the following to mind;So researchers and theorists simply do the best they can in understanding the nature of reality, and their best is far better and more rigorous than most people can manage, which is why are in that profession.
...philosophers and not "philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it.
Respectfully submitted! *__-