Title: Interesting read, but a basic misunderstanding of science.
Product review: I enjoyed Wilber's writing, but his argument about the common ground between science and religion makes some assumptions about science that are just flat wrong. He draws a line between 'broad science' and 'narrow science' to support several theories including that meditation is a 'portal to the Divine'. Science makes no such distinction. Things are either verifiable, repeatable and relevant or they are not. It was a distorted presentation based on a tortured definition of what science is and is not.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
