--- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote:
Many of these things/ideas will eventually "hold up to scrutiny" as you put it. But it may take time. Like Maharishi suggested it could take 400 years. Awesome, then sign me up for 50 yagyas and I'll pay in 400 years. If the effects are claimed to be within our lifetime however, they could set up a way to demonstrate this beyond:" people who also thought the heart organ was the center of our cognitive ability thought this was also true." Others, not so long, like the UFO phenomenon for example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FQuTnnVXM4&feature=player_embedded I like that guy. And as long as you are talking unidentified flying objects who could have a problem? The word. "unidentified" is the key. It is when you claim that you have identified them as aliens that you jump the shark. <Things are happening fast, both inner and outer. Unfortunately Curtis is holdingon to the same old, same old as if nothing happened. That's a shame and why I'm pointing it out. His thinking is a cry from a dying age.> Shooting the messenger for pointing out a lack of good reasons is really the old school thinking. Asking the movement to demonstrate the effects in the world they claim has been a popular style of thinking since the real age of enlightenment when we switched from church authority based knowledge to "Hey Tony wuddya say we take dis car on a test ride before we put the kids in the back seat and drive to the Jersey Shore?" > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > This post is an epistemological field day! It brings up many questions > > about how we can be confident about what we know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > There have been a number of large well-designed studies > > > > > > > > recently, such as the Templeton study, of 'intercessionary > > > > > > > > prayer', which seem a lot like yagyas. These studies failed > > > > > > > > to show any effect. > > > > The question of proof. Unlike the statement. Jesus saved me so I will live > > forever when I die, these claims about effects in the world can be proven. > > If they were true they would crush all skeptics. So Xeno had to use as > > close as he could get to even find such a study. Why is that? Here is an > > area where believers could shine, so why is this the only study that even > > comes close to these claims? You could say that the religious people who > > are most into yagyas don't care, but the movement has no such excuse and > > has been pitching yagyas for decades now, the claim is in Maharishi's > > earliest books. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is intercessory prayer *enough* like yagyas to extrapolate > > > > > > > the results of the prayer tests to yagyas? I can think of > > > > > > > several differences that could render such extraplation > > > > > > > pretty weak. > > > > Hard to argue with Judy here. Of course this is a generic criticism > > whenever you have a study that doesn't use exactly the same technique. So > > if some yagya guys's deal doesn't pan out then it can be claimed that it > > wasn't Maharishi's super yagyas. > > > > But that is why applying science need requires humility and she has a point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Psychic, long-distance phenomena have been studied for years > > > > > > > > without making a dent in the scientific community as the > > > > > > > > results have never been clear cut, and studies have been > > > > > > > > found to contain serious flaws which became evident when > > > > > > > > replication attempts failed, such as the Targ-Puthoff long > > > > > > > > distance viewing study many years ago. The result of this > > > > > > > > study seems to have been mentioned by MMY in the Science of > > > > > > > > Being and Art of Living as an established fact, but in fact, > > > > > > > > the result was disproved. > > > > I would expect after all these years of study and people's genuine > > enthusiasm to prove these claims that we would have something substantial > > to show for it all by now. Is that unreasonable? I mean when you have > > claims about things in the world you can test why not go for it? The press > > would be all over it, they even love shitty science on flashy topics. > > > > On the other hand the amount of fraud that has been turned up in these > > demonstrations is appalling. This is an area where people are determined > > to dupe scientists so you have a separate problem from the usual ones in > > scientific discovery, willful fraud. What other area of science has so > > many people willing to bullshit scientists? (Well lst's see > > pharmaceuticals...OK every area where money can be made.) So you need a > > magician in the lab too. Do you need a magician in the lab when you do > > intelligence tests? No. People can be deceitful and get it wrong but you > > don't have such a concerted effort for flim-flamery. > > > > If the field wants respect it needs to tighten up, police its own, and > > produce the real deal. The believers should be the most offended by fraud > > and the most eager to root it out rather than attacking people who are > > skeptical and try to catch the bamboozelers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or rather, the results were not confirmed, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a cite for this? > > > > Again Judy scores in something important to keep our eye on, the > > distinction between disproving something and not confirming it. There is a > > slight spin at work here though because in science, not being able to > > replicate something can be a bad sign for the claims. It depends on the > > strength of the follow up studies and how good the original research was. > > If there were fundamental flaws in the first studies but not the second, it > > is as close to disproving as you get in science sometimes. It can be the > > equivalent to no effect being found so no reason to support the claims. We > > would have to hear specific criticism of the both studies which I'll bet > > Judy is looking for. And again it should be the believers who are the > > most rigorous in this area to make sure that it gets confirmed. That is > > how science helps detect bad protocol. I'll have to do some research in > > this specific study, perhaps the discrediting went further than non > > replication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't sound accurate. I read that book thoroughly when > > > > > > it came out and there was no Autobiography of a Yogi stuff > > > > > > in it. It is all about integrating TM into society. > > > > I don't think this is the best angle on disproving the claim that it is in > > there. I hope someone checks my SOB is buried under books I am more likely > > to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I meant a cite for the Targ-Puthoff results being > > > > > "disproved." I don't know about SBAL mentioning the study. > > > > > Don't care about that one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You hate God and Maharishi. Period. > > > Whether you are correct or accountable in your endless pursuits of > > > putdowns does not matter the least. > > > > This is probably what caused me to post. Although typical Nabbie I would > > like to make a case that this attitude does not serve your cause well. > > What is Nabbie's cause? He has a bunch of them but they have one thing in > > common, his shooting the messenger attitude toward people who is skeptical. > > And here is where it doesn't serve the cause of believers. If it is real, > > it will hold up to scrutiny. > > > Many of these things/ideas will eventually "hold up to scrutiny" as you put > it. But it may take time. Like Maharishi suggested it could take 400 years. > Others, not so long, like the UFO phenomenon for example. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FQuTnnVXM4&feature=player_embedded > > Things are happening fast, both inner and outer. Unfortunately Curtis is > holding on to the same old, same old as if nothing happened. That's a shame > and why I'm pointing it out. His thinking is a cry from a dying age. >
