[MD] Some Abominable Beliefs-Part 2

[Case]

[Platt]
> Perhaps esthetic "values" are also quantifiable. To find common cause
> between science and religion the terms have to change from both 
> perspectives.

>From your excellent post to DMB this especially caught my eye. Any 
ideas on how esthetic values might be "quantifiable?" Or how the terms
can change to accommodate both art and science?

[Case]
The examples I am most familiar with would be Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down movie
reviews. On my NetFlix account I have rated nearly 2000 movies on a scale of
one to five. Similar rating scales are common in the hospitality industry.
Cities are listed in rank order along many dimensions from per capita income
to number of Buick owners. You probably down need my help looking for
more... but: Consumer Reports, Neilson, Arbitron, Zagat, Gallup...

[Platt]
Also I too would like to know the difference between the mystic 
experience of  Tibetan monk, a holy roller, a whirling dervish, a 
dopehead and a born-again Christian. Perhaps DMB will enlighten us. :-)

[Case]
Wilber claims that spiritual experiences replicated among individuals have
enough in common that intersubjective agreement about these experiences can
be achieved. So that when a scientist says, "Here are my results. They are
valid because you can test them and see for your self," the mystic can say,
"Yeah, we can do that with our stuff too."

I have problems with Wilber here. The chief being that, right wing theists
have as much claim to this position as the Dali Lama.