--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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."
No, that's what you read into what Lawson said. What he *actually* pointed out is that IF the ME was a real phenomenon, studies of Fairfield might not show it. In other words, one can't say anything one way or the other about whether the ME is real based on studies of Fairfield (or any other small sample). It could be that the ME isn't real, or it could be that it is real, but the sample was too small to demonstrate it. That's why it isn't a rationalization, along with the fact that, notwithstanding that it appears "long and tortured" to you, the problem with small samples is well established scientifically. > The idea that the ME itself might not be a real > phenomenon was never considered. That wasn't the question. The question was whether null results in studies of Fairfield could be considered evidence that it *wasn't* real. The question of whether it's real remains open; Lawson said nothing to suggest otherwise. > If it had been, > the word "rationalization" wouldn't have been > appropriate. I think it was appropriate. You're mistaken. It wasn't appropriate on the basis of what Lawson said. > The problem with too much (not all) of the "TM > science" is that there is this overwhelming > expectation that "science will prove us right." I agree with most of the rest of what you say. All I'm addressing is your characterization of Lawson's post. He was responding to a claim that Fairfield statistics cast doubt on the ME effect-- Peter: "In terms of 'evidence' one only has to look at the crime rate in Fairfield and then look at the number of meditators in the community to reject the ME as it is currently understood." --pointing out that the small sample size means such statistics are inconclusive with regard to its validity: Lawson: "Fairfield (not to mention MUM itself) is small enough that the ME effect might easily be confounded by variables that don't effect a larger area." I personally don't think it's possible to demonstrate the ME is real conclusively even with *large* samples, even if it *is* real, because of the huge number of variables. But that's a different issue. 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/
