My goodness. I could afford to live in Fairfield.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <awoelflebater@...>
<mailto:awoelflebater@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
I have never before seen the claim that the ME will not work in a
community of under 10,000.
I imagine it's one of those things that got invented on the spot
to explain why things don't work. See also, too much stress in
collective consciousness etc. Bit embarrassing for them that it's
been made public.
That's actually pretty odd, since Fairfield itself numbers only
about 9,500 people, which would mean that the ME has zero effect
here, but is able, so to speak, to jump over Fairfield and affect
other places in Iowa. That's one weird-acting ME!
Is FF really that small? You must know everyone in town!! Must be
a friendly place too, unless you're sick of the sight of each
other and spend all day hiding. My friends who have lived there
say it's weird being so far from other towns compared to the UK
where you can't walk for an hour without passing through several
villages.
More data: http://www.city-data.com/city/Fairfield-Iowa.html
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>,
<no_re...@yahoogroups.com> <mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <dhamiltony2k5@...>
<mailto:dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote :
Reading through that all I'm down fine enough with the rebuttals
further below. Sorry Sal you're so disgruntled with your experience.
Best Regards from Fairfield, Iowa
Thanks, I always enjoy best regards as opposed to the abuse I
often get from our fellow forum members but what puzzles me is
what experience it is that you are sympathising with me for?
If it's my experience in meditation then there's no need because
I get the same wild, breaking-on-through trips that everyone else
does. There wouldn't be much point doing it otherwise. I expect
it's the fact I'm not totally "on message" about the Marshy
Effect as you are, but as I try to point out in my post there
isn't any reason to be enthusiastic about it at all so I don;t
feel the need to help them with their advertorial. I'd hope at
least that came across.
What did you think of the /Deux ex Machina /I highlighted? Ever
come across such a pathetic excuse for why independent research
didn't replicate the results of the claim? "Sorry you couldn't
achieve social harmony in your test of our technology, even
though we told you what to do we must have omitted to mention the
one illogical thing that makes your experiment pointless" And it
makes no sense that the ME should only work on
big groups does it?
This is what I mean by scientific filters, or controls as they
are also called. I did start writing an extra paragraph there but
abandoned it as it would have made the post too long and I
thought I'd c! overed the main points. Those being is that
science is about gathering data to support a hypothesis and that
process has to be carried out in a particular way, and it has to
be consistent. Apart from the fact a lot of the complainants
accusations make a mockery of the usual standards by which social
monitoring is carried out - a fact not convincingly explained by
OJ - means it's a lot less likely that their conclusions can be
supported.
Most science is actually done in someone's head long before it
gets near a lab, whether that lab is a particle accelerator a
test tube or a war zone, there's a set of questions you have to
ask yourself to make sure that you aren't fooling yourself. These
questions will vary according to what you are proposing but
basically follow a similar path. Is there a signal to be heard or
is it random noise? Am I sure the data doesn't have a simpler
explanation or one that someone hasn't already covered? Is there
any data present that contradicts my hypothesis? Is it possible
for people to replicate? Is my idea the best - simplest - way of
explaining any data gathered? Am I just kidding myself?
You get the general idea. I have many interests that the
mainstream passes over like evidence of bicameralism in early
human self-representation, it would be easy just to look for data
that confirms that and ignore the rest but what would be the
point? I'd be the only one I'm fooling so I keep my eyes open for
contradictory information.
When I read Marshy Effect research it makes me wonder whether the
scientists involved are asking themselves similar control
questions before they even start becaus! e if they have to invent
/Deux ex Machina /as howlingly embarrassing and illogical as the
one they passed on to the poor guy who had actually /gone out of
his way to try and replicate their claims/, then they aren't
doing science properly at all. (Please note there was no attempt
to explain this in OJ's rebuttal)
You may say that it's a small point but it's pivotal to the way
they do things. The goalposts constantly shift and failures - the
yagya programme for instance - are ignored. You probably think
I'm just getting at you lot for no reason but I'm not, I'm trying
to show that science is a process trying to work out what is from
what isn't and I rather suspect that people round here cheer it
on when it supports what they want to believe and dismiss it as
irrelevant, when it doesn't.
But it gladdens my heart that everyone nowadays sees it as the
standard they have to reach for intellectual acceptance, every
New Age hopeful has to get a "quantum" in there somewhere.
Trouble is you have to accept the conclusions when they don't
support your ideas and move on to something else but there's so
much money in keeping people believing in the dream that the TMO
can't afford to do any serious research into the ME or yagya's
because they probably know by now that it isn't working.
But why would intelligent and well decorated scientists not apply
any of the usual rigour to their work? It's that there are
stronger forces at work in people than merely needing to check
theories, especially to people who have been involved in strong
cults. Larry Domash raised the point with Marshy that we
shouldn't talk about the un! ified field as we don't know
anything about it yet - this was before the SU5 experiments that
debunked it - and Marshy apparently banged the table and shouted
"We are the masters in this field!".
So that's my explanation for the blinkered and poor quality
research, you are either on the bus or you are off it. Domash and
the others decided to stay on the bus and were henceforth
duty-bound to believe and actively campaign for Marshy's
teachings. They have blinded themselves to the possibility they
are wrong because they believe utterly in Marshy's worldview of
consciousness as some sort of field that can spread peace. That's
how they can fail to ask themselves difficult questions and
invent dubious excuses to fellow researchers trying to check
their results.
Funny how ironically that mirrors the English enlightenment with
Isaac Newton and how the development of the modern scientific
method broke free of religious interference by setting up the
principles of free inquiry without anyone with a beard or funny
hat telling what to think before you've even looked. They made
dramatic gains in knowledge the minute they got away from
revealed wisdom whereas the TMO scientists remain in their own
ever decreasing circles trying to justify it!
But thanks for reading anyway Buck, even if I haven't reached you
yet ;-) But I reiterate, it's not about my experience, it's about
/explaining/ experience.
