--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <SNIP>> > I'm working from memory here, my copy of this thing is packed away. However, as > someone else has pointed out: even if the measurements for Fairfield are reliable, it could > be an anomaly. The very fact that people are taking this one study as PROOF of a theory > they already believe in makes the enterprize somewhat questionable. >
*********** I think most long-term meditators (those who would like to quit TM, if they could do without suffering withdrawal, as I believe you have said about your practice) extrapolate confidence to other Vedic knowledge because of the confidence engendered in all things Vedic by their practice of TM, which is the centerpiece of Vedic knowledge -- anyway, I do have confidence in all aspects of Vedic knowledge based on my experience with the consciousness-expanding ability of Vedic meditation, TM. As MMY has said, nobody buys half a banana, and the Vedas are total knowledge -- it doesn't make much sense to buy into half of the Vedas. The fact that some guys in lab coats have not come up a universally compelling case for the utility of Sthapathya Veda is not really important to those who see the Vedas as the "instruction book that comes along with creation" (MMY). In addition, there is no such thing as a universally compelling case in scientific research, a fact obvious from the persistence of silliness like creationism and intelligent design despite the clarity and power of evolutionary theory (funny editorial from Scientific American follows at end). Of course, a lot more research would have to be done to get at least some non-meditating scientists interested in the research, that's why studies are replicated many times before scientists buy into theories. However, this hurdle has started to be overcome by being peer-reviewed before publication in Social Behavior and Personality, so it's not like the accepted scientific methods and procedures are being ignored or contravened by SV researchers. I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence, but I do notice the uplifting effect of being in SV-compliant bldgs (although I don't really notice deleterious effects of being in south-entrance bldgs). If you don't mind being a little ascientific, do you ever notice the delightful effects of SV bldgs? Scientific American editors renounce their smug ways >From the April 2005 edition: Okay, We Give Up We feel so ashamed By The Editors There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong. In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence. Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details. Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions. Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
