Upvote:0
I'm not looking to contest buddhism from a scientific view, but from what i can tell the times when buddhism was founded or formulated was done based on different epistemological and ontological premises compared to our contemporary idea of scientific validation. In that sense buddhism and modern science are incommensurable paradigms, and expecting buddhism to be scientific would run the risk of being a bit of an anachronistic assumption.
As for the opposite direction, applying modern science to examine certain buddhist concepts are widely practiced, but i take it from your question that you're already aware of that. (If not, a personal favorite of mine is Paul Gilberts research and operalization of loving kindness and compassion).
Upvote:1
The Buddha himself advocates the scientific method:
the teaching realizable in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves --SN35.70
The practice of Buddhism is essentially endless lab experiments with reproducible results. The results are subjective and difficult to measure externally. For example, what meter can one buy to measure "tranquility"? A heart rate monitor that measures tranquility as low BPM? Maybe not, since dead people are quite tranquil at 0 BPM.
Because science prefers instrumented measurements over self-reported assessments, a scientist interested in measuring the results of Buddhist practice objectively (i.e., vs. "are you tranquil?") must do so a bit indirectly. For example, there is interest in MRI scans of meditators.
Although the reliance on instruments is fascinating, it's also a bit more than what is actually needed. If we experience a cessation of suffering, do we really need external instrument validation? And what would convince someone more to try the Noble Eight Fold Path: a scientific paper, or a friend with a clear heart?