Nice reply, information I did not have, or remember. As for quantum mechanics, yes indeed it is the most confirmed theory, but they are still searching for the Higgs boson, and there seem to be hints from various sources, but so far they have not been verified. Especially at CERN where there is sufficient energy to find it, they still have to run tests at specific energies to try to locate it. If they do not find it, there will be trouble.
As for testing the ME, it might be easier to try smaller groups in smaller cities, where size and expense of the experiment can be better controlled. Even if successful, there could be other explanations as to why it might work, if the experiments were positive. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > <snip> > > I read somewhere (sorry, reference is forgotten) that one > > researcher asked Orme-Johnson for his raw data on one of his > > Maharishi effect studies. Orme-Johnson refused him. And I once > > overheard Orme-Johnson a few years ago refer to this (he was > > sitting a few seats away down the table at lunch), saying > > regarding the data, "You know what they would do with it." > > Thus the free flow of information typical of scientific > > discourse was certainly not happening here. > > As I understand what happened, the researcher (Barry Markovsky) > had portrayed himself to O-J et al. as having a positive > interest in what they were doing--to be, at the least, open- > minded, if not leaning toward acceptance. They spent quite a > bit of time with him and agreed to show him their raw data. > Before they did, however, he gave an interview to some radio > station or newspaper that made it crystal clear that he had > never thought any of it was anything but a crock, and he > apparently misrepresented their approach and the ME theory > itself. > > So they had good cause after that not to trust him and to > anticipate that he might well misrepresent anything else > they gave him. > > Incidentally, it wasn't the "raw data"; that had been taken > from the public record. It was, I gather, how they had > plugged that data into their statistical formulas. The > formulas were pretty arcane, albeit accepted in the field, > but because they were largely incomprehensible to those > not steeped in statistical methodology, it would have been > easy to misrepresent what they were doing. > > > And, indeed, criticism of these studies is a normal part > > of the scientific process. Many feel they have found > > serious defects in these studies as they have been > > published, and have come up with alternative explanations. > > But if the raw data is kept hidden, it will not be > > possible to resolve these conflicts related to a specific > > study one way or another. > > Again, "raw data" per se isn't the issue, given that the > raw data of most of these studies is taken from the public > record (e.g., FBI crime reports). Not being a statistician, > I'm not sure what it was specifically that Markovsky wanted > to see, what he expected to find (if he even had anything > particular in mind), or how whatever he did manage to find > would have bolstered his attempt to debunk the study. It > does seem to me in this case O-J et al. had good reason to > withhold it. > > I don't know if any other researchers have asked for > additional data, or if they have, whether their requests > have been granted. Be interesting to find out. > > > Because the Maharishi effect theory is so far out of > > current scientific thinking, a series of really large, > > well-designed studies, preferably by non-meditators > > would probably be necessary to break the ice, with all > > the data freely available. > > Frankly, I'm *extremely* dubious that, if the ME exists, > it will ever be susceptible to scientific verification. > There are just too many variables and unknowns. > > > If the experiments were successful and positive this > > would still not explain to the rank-and-file scientists > > how it worked because the explanation of the 'unified > > field' would go way beyond current science, which has > > yet to verify standard quantum mechanics, > > It's my understanding that quantum mechanics has been > verified to a greater extent than any other scientific > hypothesis. They do know it *works*, in other words, > just not *how*. > > > but it would demonstrate the effect to the degree that > > other researchers would likely finally think there was > > some reality to the idea, and take the time to study it. > > Again, I'm dubious. Even if you established groups with > a sufficient number of participants and kept them in > place on a long-term basis, and after, say, a couple of > decades permanent world peace were achieved, the ME > still wouldn't get the credit except among believers. > > > A few interesting positive events happening during the '83 > > course probably could not be shown to be causally related, > > and just the same for the great increase in murders during > > the Washington course some years later. > > The researchers had a really good explanation for that > apparent anomaly. A great deal more of it was made by > the skeptics than was warranted. > > So scientifically, > > the matter is undecided, but so far only movement scientists > > think the effect is real, and have thus failed to convince > > their peers. > > No question. >
