--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > Not a rationalization. > > Didn't you know, Lawson? If it supports TM, or if it > doesn't support criticism of TM, it's a rationalization > by definition.
If it's a long, somewhat tortured "explanation" of why studies done on Fairfield, Iowa indicate no significant appearance of the ME, I'm sorry, it's a rationalization. The whole tone was, "If such studies *didn't* show that the ME was a real phenomenon, there has to be something wrong with the *study*; it was only because of the low population sample skewing the results." The idea that the ME itself might not be a real phenomenon was never considered. If it had been, the word "rationalization" wouldn't have been appropriate. I think it was appropriate. The problem with too much (not all) of the "TM science" is that there is this overwhelming expectation that "science will prove us right." It occasionally biases and colors the studies themselves, and it *certainly* colors how the results of weak studies are interpreted and presented to the public as if they constituted the "proof" that was the whole point of the study in the first place. It happens in TM "science" and it happens in everyday "science." My point is just that the expectation of finding "proof" that TM is great is driving the "science," JUST LIKE the expect- ation of finding that a new drug is great drives the "science" of "studies" paid for by the drug company that hopes to sell the drug. The entire environment of expectation of profit makes the "science" suspect. TM "science" is a classic case of the tail wag- ging the dog. Most of it would never have been undertaken if there were not an expectation that it would turn out "the way Maharishi says it will" and thus spread TM and make more money for the TMO and get the researchers a personal pat on the back from MMY. To me the parallel with the state of research on new drugs is apt. The latter is clearly "science with a profit motive"; the former is IMO "science with a prophet motive." The studies are to prove Maharishi a "great seer" as much as anything else. If TMers are involved in the study, and the person they view is an enlightened prophet and revere as almost superhuman has prophesied the kinds of things they will find in their "study," what kinds of things do you think they'll find in their "study?" Unc 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/
