"Where does this place the reproduced data of generations of Buddhist students & masters?"

I've been quite involved in Tibetan buddhism (including receiving teachings from HH Dalai Lama on The Four Noble Truths) in the past and along with Zen buddhism I don't really regard these religions in the same way as the Church of England/Methodist/Free Church (I've done the lot) I was brought up with. The free and questioning nature of mahayana buddhism (I have not experience of theravada), it's total acceptance of science and scientific methodology make it by far the most open of 'religions'. Unlike the Abrahamic monotheistic religions it's not tied to a single text that is subject to individual interpretation or the dogma of a specific earthly authority; lamas like the Dalai Lama are guides rather than authorities in the sense the Pope is.

Buddhism is a philosophy, religion or a lifestyle choice - pick your favourite; it's quite possible to be non-religious and a buddhist. In terms of the reproducibility of the data you're correct that the western paradigm is unsuitable for assessing some of the data, but I'm sure if someone were to interview as many Lamas, tulkus and monks as possible and review the literature you'd find there is a mine of information that would stand up to rigorous western-style analysis. Having known various analysts over the years I feel sure that western techniques such as CBT (although very good) could learn a heck of lot more from a comprehensive review of Tibetan and Zen buddhist literature and teaching; they are virtually identical in places (visualisation exercises spring immediately to mind).

As for the buddhist ideal of Nirvana, to me it's one of the most interesting and profound concepts I've ever come across and whatever the state of enlightenment actually is, then it's something that if we could understand* might have profound consequences for us all.


*I realise this comment is a contradiction with regards to my earlier agreement on the western paradigm in a sense as it's a very western empirical statement; obviously buddhists do understand enlightenment but I wonder if there might be a new way of looking at the reality of the concept using scientific methodology. I also understand this might draw criticism for trying to turn everything into quantifiable data acceptable to scientists. In a sense that's a fair criticism but I would defend it by repeating that we stand on the edge of an ocean of knowledge and we can learn so much from other people's world views; as scientists we need to develop new methodologies and disciplines in order to study these new areas effectively. Exciting, isn't it!