I think the scientific process is well intentioned to discover more but ultimately would have to be defined as the more close-minded paridigm because it's in constant denial that truth exists before proof ever does or could. In science, truth is only determined to exist once the empirical framework of proof has been built under it, yet truth is totally independent of our means of proving it. Therefore there is no objective person, but only truth and different tolerances for believing it. Since there is no objectively true person (besides Jesus Christ but know I am suspending my knowledge to write this) then there is no absolutely objective human methodologies, only religions which attempt to reflect truth to varying degrees of success, science being the most successful because by its nature is to rigorously isolate itself from anything personal.
Science seeks to isolate itself from anything personal because, as I said, there is no objectively true person. Therefore, it is an disillusioned jump in reason to think we have created an absolutely objective methodology. To do so is to merely believe in science rather than truth, and a person only does this because they have a low tolerance of belief. You may intuit now, correctly, that believing in science will never be the same as believing the truth. It is better, and more true, to believe.