There is no "I" in "You"

[The Grand Nudger]

What about this--if the question is whether eastern philosophical traditions are more rational than western traditions, I agree with you. They are not. My contention is that they are more skeptical. In the sense of not having much confidence in metaphysics.

They didn't have much confidence in metaphysical propositions to which a western audience is familiar, they had a great deal of confidence in their own.  Will we be treated to another myopic selection of scrubbed parts of a single tradition as support of this continued claim?

Let's contrast this kind of skepticism with two philosophers that had no problems at all making claims about all sorts of metaphysics: Plato and Aristotle. 

Pointless. For reasons elaborated on at length.

Now let's take Nagarjuna. Ask him about whether we can know stuff about metaphysics, and he's all, "No...just, no."

I'm fascinated that you think this.

But anyway. To give you an example of how anatta relates to physics, a while ago I was watching a conversation between Robert Wright and Lawrence Kraus, about the Higgs boson. And how it explains why electrons have mass. Wright stated that it wouldn't have occurred to him to think that there ought to be an explanation for something like that--he would have just accepted mass as a brute fact about electrons. A property they have which has no explanation.

Stop right there.  It doesn't,  anatta has and had absolutely no relation to physics, then or now, or any portion of modern science.  This is an "allah predicted it" moment.  Retroactive syncretism.

What he was presupposing is metaphysics. That electrons have "own-nature," or svabhava, as the ancient Indians called it. Read some Nagarjuna and you'll see him critiquing this concept within an unexceptionally non-ghosty intellectual framework.

People who don't believe in ghosts often manage to believe an incredible number of other, equally less-than-skeptical things. Your boy Nagarjuna, for example, was a loon. Again counting hits, ignoring misses. I get that you find this non-ghostly framework so refreshing. That it seems like there are ghosts everywhere in western philosophy. However, like the rise of buddhism...that has more to do with politics and history than philosophy or the relative skepticism of either tradition. It probably has more than a little bit to do with your familiarity with both traditions, as well.