Summary
The scientific method has changed the world but it is stubbornly difficult to make progress in some fields like nutrition and psychology.
In these areas there are issues around population statistics and the impact of subjectivity that are not easily circumnavigated.
We can start to address a number of these problems by developing a new ‘first-person‘ science.
Rereading The Miracle of Mindfulness by Thich Nhat Hahn I am convinced it is a perfect introduction to meditation for a newcomer.
The basic journey described is one of developing a meditation practice goal-first through deepening mindfulness.
There are certain writing styles that operate as meditation in prose and Thich Nhat Hahn achieves this.
The Attributes of the Sciences by Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin
Essay: First-Person Science
1. The Domains of Traditional Science
The adoption of the scientific method has been one of the most profound changes in human culture of the last few hundred years.
Regardless of a persons political position, even if one has particularly luddite-like leanings, it is undeniably the case that this method has given us powerful capabilities. Developments like nuclear power and penicillin - tools that have completely altered our relationship to the natural world - have inspired some to hope that the method will be able to meet every challenge we face regardless of the domain.
However, these hopes have not yet been realised. There are areas where traditional scientific investigation appears to be stubbornly ineffective. This is certainly true for the humanities, philosophy, history and the like. For these fields though the argument could be made that the method is inapplicable due to the nature of the study. These domains deal with idea-based, qualitative theories where the empirical method is ill-suited. However, there are domains that are, at least theoretically, physical systems similar to the 'hard' sciences, like psychology or nutrition. Despite the similarities these have been equally unassailable by the scientific method.
In the case of psychology it looks like less than 50% of published papers may be replicable i.e. less than half of these papers have results that can be independently recreated. This means that taken as a whole the information they contain is essentially no better than random for learning about the world. For nutrition the supposedly solid findings that laid the foundations for the field and underpinned recommendations like the food pyramid are now being questioned. There is a growing body of scientists and physicians that consider current guidelines the exact opposite of a healthy diet.
The Problem of Traditional Science at the Edges
Why is the usual method not working here? It's possible the assumption that these domains are physical systems is fundamentally flawed. If true, this would end the possibility of finding objectively verifiable answers. It would be nice not to give up that hope without giving it our best shot. If we maintain that these are systems that are, at least for the most part, untouched by the supernatural then there are two reasons that could explain why we have struggled with them so far.
The first issue is that the field of study (i.e. humans) may be too diverse for traditional statistical methods to be used effectively. The complexity of subjects embedded in particular cultures, age groups, microbiomes, education systems, soil compositions, and the like may render statistical techniques with some assumptions of normal-ness obsolete.
The second issue is that there may be a degree of subjectivity that defines the system. The gold standard of pharmaceutical tests is the randomised control trials. In these trials a placebo (an inert alternative to the drug being tested) regularly accounts for more than 30% of the effect of the drug i.e. a person taking the the placebo will improve compared to the control group that receives nothing with an effect size ~30% of that for those taking the drug.
So, even in a setting with such a clear intervention the subjects beliefs can have a huge effect. Given this, when looking at the multi-dimensional settings that we find in a domain like nutrition it would be a shock if we didn’t find subjective responses having a much larger impact.
First-Person Science
Given these issues I'd like to propose an approach that tries to keep some of the rigour of the scientific method while accepting that there are settings where traditional tools for developing a degree of objectivity do not work well. Let's call this first-person science.
As the name implies this would be a personal method. The individual would investigate and make observations in the field in question through their own life, without recourse to objective population studies.
The aim would be to, through assiduous individual participation, collect clear data, understand (at least qualitatively) the context for that data, and record the subjective experience associated with it.
This is not a silver bullet to the problems posed for science in these areas but it may help. Working out a clear understanding of how it would work would take time but thinking ahead there are some aspects that I think can be gestured at:
The method would only treat issues that are empirically observable. i.e. it must make testable hypothesis
The quality of the application of the method would be determined by careful & public records released before, during and after every experiment.
The ultimate investigative virtue would be honesty. The investigator would have to tell the truth both to others and to themselves. This is critical due to the ease with which one could bend the truth if results don't match a personally cultivated theory.
Over time specific technical methods like how long a test should run, what needs to be controlled for etc. will be built up in collaboration between investigators.
Any results that the method claims must be minimally and cautiously applied. In other words we can no longer treat these results as global solutions each must be validated by every person that wishes to use them.
This method is close to but different from the work of the quantified self movement. The aim is not to recreate the confusion that comes from collecting as much data as possible. Instead it is a new kind of experimentation paradigm.
The best way to transmit the findings of first person science is likely something like the anecdote. The kind of trip report given by psychedelic explorers but accompanied with real data.
It is not lost on me that this sounds a little like just paying attention and trying to live a good life with an aspect of quantitative study thrown in. However, if that is the case I think it supports rather than harms the attempt to create such a method as it implies a meaningful historical precedent.
This is an initial attempt at describing first person science, but it's an idea that has a lot of potential. By giving scientific investigation new forms to deal with topics unavailable to it's traditional applications we may be able to unlock another wave of powerful results for people to improve their lives.
📘 Book Review: The Miracle of Mindfulness
Thich Nhat Hahn the author of the Miracle of Mindfulness is one of the most prolific and influential Buddhist monks in the the Western world. Thich Nhat Hahn is originally from Vietnam. During the Vietnam war he became an outspoken peace advocate and influential in pacifist movements across the world. In 1967 Martin Luther King nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Despite these political accolades, most people who know Nhat Hahn are likely to have first learned about him, as I did, from reading one of his more than 100 books on Buddhist practice.
The Miracle of Mindfulness was one of the first of these books, released in 1975. Despite the many works that he has since published it remains a foundational text for its comprehensive description of the cultivation of mindfulness and the practice of meditation.
The book begins with a chapter entitled "The Essential Discipline" that gives a description of mindfulness, the quality that is both the aim and the instrument of meditation.
"Mindfulness" is probably the most common translation of the pali word sati which is used consistently in Buddhist texts to describe the work of a monk. Another translation I've seen for the term is 'remembering' specifically as in "remembering the present moment". In the simplest terms you could say that it is being aware of what is happening in each moment. As Thich Nhat Hahn stresses this does not mean a passive awareness without response but it does mean a degree of presence and conscious engagement beyond what we usually experience.
After this description of mindfulness the book moves on to an extended discussion on the breath. For Nhat Hahn, following the breath is the foundational work of meditation and the first place to experience mindfulness. Once you have learned to master your breath and return to you awareness of it you will have a powerful physical tool for centring and a return to mindfulness regardless of the situation.
With mindfulness as the goal and the breath as the primary tool the book then moves on to talk about meditation proper. Although this is the most orthodox form of practice that Nhat Hahn discusses it is done with a light touch. Although coming from a Buddhist author the directions could be followed by the most secular minded person.
The book ends with a brief look at what could be considered some of the more theological elements of the Buddhist worldview. Most important of these is interdependence, that each being relies on every other. With this discussion complete we round out the triad of experience, practice and theory.
While short and sweet the book's content is comprehensive. Yet, it is never bogged down in simply presenting its content. Like all of Nhat Hahn's books the most striking thing about the Miracle of Mindfulness is its tone. It's a tone that since his first writings were published has been much copied within the broader Buddhist community but never equalled. The language is easy, there are no big words, no disjoint assertions, and no complex philosophical arguments. Everything is explained plainly with straightforward prose and, where helpful, a playful analogy. The flow is so clean and the advice so plain that reading the book becomes its own kind of meditative practice.
Reading this book as a teenager was one of the first introductions I had to the Buddhist worldview and the practice of meditation. At the time it had a profound experience on me. Rereading it now I am convinced it remains one of the best introductions a Westerner could hope for.