--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > Given the chaos of the recent incident in London, MMY's decision 
to 
> > leave the UK is prophetic and validates his reputation as a 
modern 
> > day Seer.
> 
> Lawson, just to follow up on my point earlier this
> morning, *this* is why so much of the TM research
> is suspect, and deservedly so.  Just as fairly 
> random events are manipulated by True Believers to
> "validate" the way they view Maharishi and his
> "seeing,", some of the science is used for the 
> same purpose.

You're not quoting me, but I understand your point, and I agree with 
it completely.

> 
> In the case of the claim that the above statement
> was part of, I suspect you'd agree with me that 
> the real intent is not even to "validate" Maharishi.
> It's to "validate" the *faith* that John R. has in
> him.  His post is like saying, "See?!  I wasn't 
> crazy to believe in him all these years after all.  
> This *proves* that he was right, and therefore that 
> *I* was right to believe in him."

Of course.

> 
> My suspicion is that this same scenario plays out
> in far too much of the TM-related research.  Some
> of it, as you've pointed out, is tight.  But a lot
> of it isn't, and for this same reason.  There is 
> too much *self-validation* going on for the 
> researchers themselves to allow for any true 
> objectivity.  The bottom line for research done by 
> TMers who have committed themselves to Maharishi 
> and the TM movement for years is that if they DON'T 
> find positive results, it invalidates their OWN 
> lives and challenges their OWN faith.  So what are 
> they likely to find?

Of course.

> 
> Plus, there's the darshan factor.  Other than being
> rich, how do you get into a room with Maharishi 
> these days and get a personal pat on the back from
> him?  Duh.  You do a research project that "proves"
> that TM is a Good Thing or that the ME is real.
> 
> In terms of biasing the results of any study, this
> is in the same ballpark as a drug company offering
> researchers a cash bonus if the research proves
> their new drug valuable, and no bonus if it does
> not.  This has actually happened with drug studies.
> My point is that I think it's happened subtly with
> some of the TM-related studies as well.

Absolutely, either consciously or unconsciously.




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