--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

I'd like to see this happen as well.  In general,
I am far from "anti-science" or "anti-TM science."
I'd just like the latter to be solid, and practical.

The ME studies are NEVER going to convince anyone
of anything.  Period.  Your own example below shows
how people will react even to the most "solid" such
study.  For 99% of the human population, it's a 
preposterous idea for which the obvious reaction
to any study that suggests it's true is disbelief.

> 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.

It all depends on what the people who *use* the 
science want to accomplish.  To be perfectly honest,
the ME research is designed to be used to get people
to give Maharishi shitloads of money, NOT to get 
people to start TM.  I'd say it would be more
productive to focus on studies that would do the
latter.  For example, one-third of the adult popu-
lation of America and many other countries is on a
constant prescription of antidepressants.  How 'bout
a side-by-side study of TM as treatment vs drugs as
treatment, dealing with cost and results and side
effects.  If *that* reseach turned out positive, it
could easily and might easily be believed.  But the
ME?  Forget it.  The *only* reason anyone is doing
any studies on it is to "prove Maharishi right,"
and let's face it, how many people in the world
care about that?

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/
 


Reply via email to