The scientific method is a set of processes that strive to minimize the bias and error that are inherent in how humans think — which is exactly what traditional meditation is for, by the way.

But Science, as opposed to the scientific method, is hobbled by such mundane concerns as “advancing one death at a time,” “science for sale,” and the subjective and hegemonic biases present in the publication process, such as in the distasteful decades-old internecine war over alternative theories about the cause of the demise of dinosaures.

Sure, in a perfect world traditional meditation results in everyone becoming enlightened, and the scientific method being implemented in a totally objective manner. But a perfect world doesn’t exist.

Personally, I see nothing but promise in the adoption of routine daily insight meditation by all scientists, because it will make them better scientists, who are more objective and less focused on pecuniary objectives — as true science should be. But we’re not there yet.

There is nothing innate about objective observation.

That statement isn’t grounded in reality. It reminds me of the recent “D’oh!” arising from some camps after researchers discovered 14,000 year old burnt bread remains in an archeological site and realized that humans were making bread out of einkorn wheat for thousands of years before they “invented” agriculture to produce crops of it. Apparently, it never occured to anyone that humans would only have invented a better way to raise crops if they had already been raising and utilizing the plants. Even scientists like simple bed-time stories…

The innate ability of humans to be objective — at times — is what keeps them alive. Traditional meditation increases that. Don’t confuse today’s ruining of human intelligence as indicative of our innate abilities.