<--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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? > >
Yes, that seems what Jon Hagelin in TMmovement-Jihad-eese-speak does constantly push and MMY as the spiritual leader argues too and they are scientists. Seems that this is the weight of the logical conclusion of the science. That the research into the benifits of TM means that everyone should do it. To quote another radical intellectual leader of TM-jihad, "The 21st century will be about research published in resepected peer- reviewed scientific journals. Get used to it." Is where the battleground of spiritual warfare has gone to now. "Extensive published research shows that coherence and positivity is created in collective consciousness when a small number of people practice the Transcendental Meditation and more advanced Yogic Flying techniques together in a group-" "The Invincible America Assembly is raising the quality of collective consciousness and behavior throughout society to be more harmonious, more life supporting. And Nature is responding more positively." End of story Yes, & evidently means that everyone should do it in one form or another for many good reasons. -Doug in FF Hagelin's current TMmovement thoughts Published in the Fairfield Daily Ledger: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/157620 > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > 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 > > >
