--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > snip > > > > > > Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should have > > > > honored a request from an adjacent and major university. > > > > > > It would have been a little like handing him a gun > > > so he could shoot them. > > > > ******** > > > > Judy, this strikes me as a really odd thing to say. > > Well, actually I think you have a really odd way > of interpreting it. Self-serving, even.
@@@@@@@@ Self-serving? This strikes me as ad hominem, the type of argument you so famously abhor. What I am trying to point out here is that for some reason you appear to be arguing in favor of with-holding information, which immediately invalidates any scientific research, which by nature is only accepted if it is open to public scrutiny. @@@@@@@@ > > > Only a loaded gun can shoot someone, and only one kind of > > ammunition could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions > > were not vald. > > Or *apparent* evidence. It's really pretty > amusing that you're so sure the TM researchers > "massaged" the data to show results that didn't > exist, yet you can't conceive of a hostile > researcher "massaging" data that shows real > results so it ends up looking as if there are > none. @@@@@@@@ Now you are resorting to the straw man, and Big Time, if I may say so. Regarding my certainty that "massaging" took place: I lived on campus for the better part of 20 years, 7 as a student. I was in constant contact with people who were involved with TM research, including graduate students who worked on many of the published studies, including the one in question. First, as a general point, I would like to say unequivocally that I was told on several occasions by graduate students in the sciences that such "massaging" did occur, often because Maharishi felt the results from studies were lack lustre and needed to be beefed up. I also remember a discussion with a grad student from the MASCI who told me that a student who said that research studies had not supported the claim for improved eyesight based on TM practice was told by faculty that M had said vision improved, so if the study contradicted M it must be wrong. With regard to the specific study in question, I have stated clearly on several occasions that it took considerable work after the fact to achieve the eventual claim of 25% reduction of crime, and that I know this from numerous discussions with someone who was working on it at the time. I have never said that I "don't believe in" the Maharishi Effect, nor have I said that "nothing happened" in the DC project. However, the movement has a long history of fudging studies, and this one appears to fall in that tradition. Now, as for your remark that I "can't conceive of a hostile researcher "massaging" data that shows real results so it ends up looking as if there are none": I have made no statements anywhere near that ball park. To this point, I have not even mentioned Markovsky. So while we're on the subject, let me remove all doubt about it. Markovsky does seem biased in some respects, and may even exhibiit some form of David/Goliath complex, but that doesn't mean that none of his criticisms are valid. They must be examined on the basis of their merit, and that cannot be done unless all the evidence is available. @@@@@@@@ > > I don't know whether the TM researchers fudged > the data when they "massaged" it. I do know that > they had very good reason not to give the data to > Markovsky even if the massaging was legitimate and > the results were genuine and everything was pure > as the driven snow, because he had the motivation > and the knowhow to make it *look* like garbage. @@@@@@@@ It is not uncommon in the public discourse of science for competitors to try to descredit each other. The whole concept of science as a public discipline is that the process will ultimately support truth. But not if the data are hidden. @@@@@@@@ > > That is, if they had nothing to fear, > > why not hand over the empty gun? > > Because Markovsky had his own bullets and powder, > of course. @@@@@@@@ As I said before, the only information that can hurt a researcher is false information. If MIU's data were good, they had nothing to fear, in the long run, from disclosing. This is so fundamental I am surprised that it seems to need discussion. @@@@@@@@ > > Did you read what I said about Markovsky having > complained--in a scholarly journal, yet, as well > as endlessly on alt.m.t--that the TM researchers > were unethical because they didn't obtain informed > consent from the populations they were trying to > affect? > > Does that say "objective and unbiased" to you? @@@@@@@@ I have never, ever, said that Markovsky was "objective and unbiased", and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. As I said before, competitiveness and grudges are not uncommon in the sciences. In the long run, only the data can say who is right and who is wrong. If there is a problem in the interpretation, it will be resolved in time. Therefore, only those with something to hide will fear the release of the data. L B S ------------------------ 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/
