On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:08 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: > Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some > studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you > were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked. I certainly meant no > insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the > back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found > silly about my arguments. However, the one thing that bugged me about > both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by > the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored. They > only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.
It turns out many TM research TB's do talk like that. So even though it sounds like L., you do hear similar or identical patterns of denial from other TM TB's. It's eerie. Many TM folks simply believed what they told and never really looked into the matters objectively--I certainly know that I didn't for decades. And most have no real background in science, statistics, physiology or research. It was very exciting to believe that the claims were all true and that you were part of this imaginary exalted tradition. It's not easy or even believable when you find out different and the tenacity of the denial seems proportional to the ego-investment and attachment we have to the technique. The fact is, it's never good to be attached to ANY technique. It's also difficult to admit to ourselves that an org that put out some of the most beautiful presentations, advertisements and publications--often painstakingly executed--is not really interested in using science as a tool of truth, but just gold-gilding it.
