What do you think?

Is there any true enlightenment which science cannot measure?

Best as I can tell the only sort of "enlightenment" that xience (doncha like my new spelling?) can reliably measure is bound to watts and degrees of magnitude, etc.

The xience that measures intelligence, compassion, understanding, etc doesn't manage to be reliable and is definitely open to (a lot of) mis-measurement. 

There are lots of things we can't measure (yet) and perhaps some that never will be, not everything is quantifiable.

As it's something I've spent a great deal of time looking into, I'm really loathe to mention it because of the inevitable crackpot woo-woo that crawls out of the woodwork when it's mentioned but...

Qualia / subjective experience / the "hard problem" of consciousness - a complete explanation is currently beyond the reach of material, objective science.  Some, brain in the jar philosophers for example, would argue that it's impossible for science to explain.  I don't entirely agree because a sound theory just needs to be consistent with observation - there's no such thing as a theory with a zero probability of being wrong (hehe, well duh!)

Quantum science puts a kink in objective science's armor. The major break thoughts are due to paradigm shifts.

QuoteAccording to Kuhn, "When scientists must choose between competing theories, two men fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions." For this reason, basically, the criteria still are not "objective" in the usual sense of the word because individual scientists reach different conclusions with the same criteria due to valuing one criterion over another or even adding additional criteria for selfish or other subjective reasons.
       

Thank you for using Kuhn in the one place he was really writing about, instead of - like everyone else - where he was not.

Ahh, good old "confirmation bias". 

Well remember, or find out, that quantum mechanics at least suggests that the very act of observing is changing the outcome. Objective may not be possible at some levels.

Yeah I meant the Kuhn reference to selective criteria.  Did you see that Futurama episode when the horse race ends in a quantum finish and Farnsworth screws up his docket with "No fair! You changed the result by measuring it?"   I do like that show.  Shame the films are a bit weak.

science is based on facts. so the fact is that enlightenment, in general is not all quantifiable by any science, Sure scientists can measure respiration rate and brain waves but the concept is so individual that i doubt accurate data could be gathered.
Budda couldn't explain it other than to tell his followers that life is an illusion.

QuoteThe English word covers two concepts which can be quite distinct: religious or spiritual enlightenment and secular or intellectual enlightenment. This can cause confusion, since those who claim intellectual enlightenment often reject spiritual concepts altogether.

Now if you are talking about it in a religious content then that is a subjective individual belief. It is about the same as believing in God.

There are lots of things science can't measure.

Yet, and Never (perhaps).  Many things can't be quantified, or measured - but, as such, they are outside the province of science (so far).  Currently, if you can't do that, its not science.

Quote from: ell on July 22, 2009, 02:53:05 AM
"enlightened" is itself such an exalted word, bordering on bombast

I agree.  It's conceited in the self-referential and usually condescending in the objective.

I've thought that science was a systematic collection (or understanding?) of knowledge. Which, to me, means a total degree of repoducibility. As in, if I have the collection of knoweldge to allow me to have this fact, then I can recreate this fact by following the same line of knowledge.

So, I am ignorant of many things but based on this definition I have problems with, political science, social science and definitly economic science, based on beyond anything but the most simplistic point. Political science, different political views exist, but the end point may be the same. Social science, a person born into poverty may have a worse life outcome than someone who isn't; but not always. Economic science - spend more than you earn you go broke, no seems to learn from that. Maths: 2+2=4; no matter how often you try it.

Cindy

With political science, economic science, social science etc., the "science" term is only used to try and make it sound like something more than guesswork - at best educated guesswork.

We're all in the same boat, and half the time we're up ->-bleeped-<-'s creek. -- Anonymous

It's easy enough to generate some feeling of bliss or lightness in a room full of people who are supposedly working spiritually. It's even easy to generate ecstasy. But a few beers, the right partner, and the Rolling Stones' music for an evening can do that too. -- Lee Lozowick

There is no method for scientifically measuring anything so completely subjective in nature.

QuoteWhich, to me, means a total degree of reproducibility

Not exactly. For example science has declared smoking is hazardous to your health. It is all probability. Like civil court you just need to tip the scales.

And science has declared that if you let go of an apple while standing on the earth, it will probably fall to the ground.