Response below. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > It's only ad hominem argumentation if it's a > *substitute* for reasoned argument. And I wasn't > using it as part of my argument in any case; it was > just an observation (which I stand by). > > > 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. > > Not arguing in favor of it, of course (speaking of > straw men). Just pointing out that in this case > the fact that they did withhold information does not > necessarily mean they had something to hide; there > were other considerations as well. > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > > > > 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. > > Well, no, I'm not at all resorting to the straw man, > sorry. You need to refresh your understanding of > rhetorical fallacies and perhaps take a look at your > own words again. > > > Regarding my certainty that "massaging" took place: > > I wasn't questioning that. > > <snip long justification for certainty> > > > 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. > > Oh, sure you did: "Only one kind of ammunition > could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions > were not vald." > > > 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. > > Actually the criticisms he has made, since he made them > on the basis of what was published and not on the > unpublished data, can be evaluated on the basis of their > merit by examining the published study, i.e., what he > was working with. > > I agree, some of his criticisms do appear to be quite > valid (although, of course, we haven't heard a > rebuttal from the researchers; I seem to remember > something about the journal refusing to publish one, > but I'm not positive about that). > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > > 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. > > Well, but if this isn't the case, if the discrediting > actually *suppressed* truth sometimes, we'd never know > it, would we? All we see are the instances in which > truth did win out. So I don't think you can say this > with such certainty. > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > > > 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. > > I think you mean here what you said before about > evidence that the researchers' conclusions were > not valid (otherwise, I'd point out that false or > at least distorted information is exactly what > they expected from Markovsky). > > > 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. > > I don't think you can dismiss the possibility that > researchers can be falsely discredited by a hostile > and unethical opponent, and that this can effectively > kill any chance they have of getting anywhere. This > would be *particularly* the case with researchers > who are pushing unorthodox theories, especially if > those theories are associated with a religious-type > system; their credibility is shaky to start with. > > > @@@@@@@@ > > > > > > 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. > > I meant the quote marks to go with "Does that say," > not to suggest you had used those words. > > > 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. > > Again, I disagree that this is always the case. > Researchers who have been falsely discredited may never > be able to get anybody to *look* at their data and may > sink without a trace. And the TM researchers have two > strikes against them from the start simply by the > nature of what they're doing. > > If a researcher who didn't have ulterior motives had > requested the data and they had refused, I'd come to > the same conclusion you did, that they had something > to hide. In this case, there is a possible alternate > explanation, so I can't.
&&&&&&&& Science succeeds or fails as a public enterprise. Its conventions are agreed to by all. Like the justice system, it is as flawed as the people who practice it; science sometimes fails in the same way that justice sometimes fails. However, its only chance for success is that people continue to participate in good faith. The movement and Markovsky have fallen into an adverasarial relationship. However, I do not see how this invalidates my central argument. The data themselves are the sine qua non of the public aspect of science. People canand doargue about how the data are processed, manipulated, etc, but that argument is part of the public process of science. The underlying facts, the data themselves have to be open to verification. In my experience and observation, the movement does not really care about science. There are of course, some scientists in the movement who do, and who struggle to maintain their professional integrity, but the integrity of science itself is not considered important in comparison with the agenda of furthering the movement's aims. This is widely perceived within and without the movement, and is just one reason why this discussion is moot. While I do understand the position you have taken, and the arguments in support of it, nevertheless it reminds me slightly about the controversy over torturing prisoners. The president says "We don't torture" while his administration battles against legislation which would make torture illegal. The movement says it has scientific proof for the benefit of its programs, but doesn't want its "proof" examined too closely. As I said before, the "demonstration" demonstrated nothing, except for its participants. I was a participant myself, and considered the event one of the great experiences of my life, but I am comfortable accepting the fact that its impact on the scientific community and the public at large was next to nil. 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/
