--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. >>> > > > > > > Except that the chance that it was due to some other effect was > > > found to be statistically insignificant, as measured bya ll > current > > > and appropriate means of statistical analysis. > > > > As I understand it, the chance that the effect > > was *due to chance* was found to be statistically > > insignificant. That's a bit different. I'm not > > suggesting it was due to chance. >>> > > I see. > But I think it states that the chance that it was due to other > factors was found to be unlikely.
Unlikely to be the other factors that were considered, of course. The problem with research like this is that you can never prove that you allowed for ALL possible factors. This is why scientists prefer labratories to the "real world." > > > > > > > > > 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. >>> > > > > > > Unless you choose to ignore statistically significant studies > > > published in peer reviewed journals. Then, with such an > approach, > > > you can rule out anything you damn well please, as your mood > takes > > > you. > > > > Not only have I not chosen to ignore such studies, > > I posted cites to them here.>>> > > > I know. > The post was for those who are using heresay and rumor to bolster > their irrationality. Peer-review in scientific journals is the only > standard by which humans can agree. If it is not a perfect system > then it will need to be established under strict peer-review > precisely that it is not perfect (for how else are people to agree > upon observations?). And then, once this establishes it to be > imperfect (which has not yet been established by peer-review), then > it should be improved upon. > Until these two steps are taken then it is the best way humans have > to ensure some measure of measurability and consensus. > Opinions based on non-peer review amount to fairy tales and myth. > So kudos to you. > > OffWorld > ------------------------ 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/
