TurquoiseB wrote: > > 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.
Unc, I've heard this complaint a lot, if not as clearly and cleverly as you state it. The response I always have is, "I thought Science was aware of these inherent weaknesses in its methods and has developed means to screen them out." When I talk about separating the "solid studies" from the weak ones, I'm partly talking about culling those that lack good screening methodologies. As far as the Maharishi Effect goes, for all the criticisms I've heard (such as Fairfield's crime rate), I always think back to the study published in '89 (or so) in the Journal of Confict Resolution. That was the study they didn't want to publish, but its methodology was so tight that no one on the jury could find a reason to reject it. Instead they dismissed it in an introduction that said in passing that the results were preposterous. Now *that's* poor science. I believe there were followup articles on that study. What did they say? Did they decide the research was indeed preposterous? - Patrick Gillam 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/
