But I am sad > to hear you say that you are throwing out ALL of modern science > because it doesn't suit your opinion. On that idea are fascist states > born.
What are you talking about? Do you think that my lack desire to do TM means that I am rejecting science? Do you believe that the research into the benifits of TM means that everyone should do it? I rejected the states TM was developing in me for my own personal reasons. It has nothing to do with a chart that shows that chilling out with TM in fact chills you out. Perhaps TM isn't the only way to chill out. --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > I spent a month with David OJ studying the collected papers. Some > > published research is better than others. One critical context to > > evaluate about research is what conclusions are being drawn from > > the studies. This is an area were even some good movement studies > > fall down IMO. In other words, it is possible to do a good study on > > improvements on a rod and frame test. It is another thing to > > extrapolate that this means that mediators have a more stable > internal > > state of reference. > > > > Although I share your enthusiasm for the scientific method as a tool > > to expand knowledge, I don't forget that it is always humans using > > this tool. It is never practiced in purity. The TM studies are not > > all on one level of reliability, published or not. David went into > a > > lot of detail about which tests were more rigorous than others. > > Getting published is only one aspect in evaluating the credibility > of > > scientific research. >>> > > That is fairly common in science, and that is why the rigor aspect > needs to be constantly refined, and a lot of the TM research was > found be more robust than most studies in any science. But I am sad > to hear you say that you are throwing out ALL of modern science > because it doesn't suit your opinion. On that idea are fascist states > born. > > I won't go down that road. > THE ONLY (I stress, THE ONLY) way for people to agree on things in > the world are through study and replication under validated > conditions. A LOT of the most important research on TM is robust, and > only anti-science freaks bring up the argument that if 1 in 10 of > them is not strong, then they are, by default , ALL of them weak. > That is the way of the Neocons and I am appalled to see so many > people here on FFL, like Boo, Ru, Poo, Lurk, Turq, Smirk, Jurk, Curt, > and Burt, all acting EXACTLY like the Neocons when something in > science does not suit their opinion. > > I am appalled. > > OffWorld >
