--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, you know as well as I do that any "evidence" was so trumped- > up that even nobody in the TMO took it very seriously for very > long. I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise.
Sal, I'm not "trying to pretend" anything. Please don't accuse me of insincerity. And don't mistake a devil's-advocate approach for True Believerism. In fact, I *don't* know that the evidence was trumped up, and neither do you. Obviously the 1989 Journal of Conflict Resolution study was taken by the TMO with the utmost seriousness, or it would never have attempted the subsequent D.C. gathering several years later. The studies on both projects, moreover, were taken seriously enough by the editors and peer reviewers of established independent journals that they were published (whether or not they bought into the conclusions). What I'm not at all sure about is whether the statistical data were the result of the alleged Maharishi Effect, or some other factors that weren't taken into account. I think the latter is more likely. It's also certainly *possible* that the data or the statistical analyses were deliberately fudged; I wouldn't rule that out by any means. But I think it's more likely the researchers' convictions led them to overinterpret the data. Genuine skepticism doesn't involve rejecting evidence out of hand as "trumped up" just because you're inclined to disbelieve what the evidence appears to point to. That's what I call skeptopathy. I'm genuinely skeptical. I'm not at all convinced there's a Maharishi Effect, but I don't have a solid basis for ruling it out. At the same time, I think it's fruitless to attempt to prove it scientifically even if it *does* exist, and I suspect that's why they've stopped trying, not because they no longer believe it exists. The ME effect only > exists in the memories of a few who refuse to admit it was mostly > hocus-pocus from the beginning. Even M has given up on the large > groups. > > Sal > > > On Oct 23, 2005, at 11:33 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > > Yep, it's the old line--we can't prove it, we just *know* it's > > > there. > > > > No, actually that it would be almost impossible to > > prove is what *I'm* saying, not what the TM > > researchers are saying, or the TMO, for that matter. > > That's why they've done the studies, you see, so > > they can say they've proved it, or at least have > > good evidence for it. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
