--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > In 1994 Hagelin was the recipient of an Ig Nobel Prize, which is > > > for > > > > "achievements" that "cannot, or should not, be reproduced", i.e., > > > for > > > > pseudoscience. In his case the prize was awarded for his > > > experimental > > > > conclusion that 4,000 meditators at the Maharishi University of > > > > Management caused an 18 percent decrease in crime in Washington, > > > DC. > > > > > > ....research which was later published in a peer-reviewed journal: > > > Social Indicators Research, 47, 153201, whilst the sceintists who > > > gave out the ignobel prize in 1994, have gone back to their > > > teaching jobs, and are struggling to get any recognition or > > > published work. > > > > Don't dis the folks who award the Ig Nobels either. > > They're exceptionally savvy and thoughtful people. > > The following quote is from Prof. Paul Meyers from U of Minn. in > response to a question about an intelligent design guy who got a paper > published in a science journal: > > "Well, first of all, sometimes real crap gets published in peer- > reviewed journals, and sometimes really great stuff has to struggle to > get the approval of other scientists. It's not an absolute sine qua > non of good research -- it's more of a stochastic thing, where what > counts more is what kind of work snowballs into a lot of research... > The whole shoddy affair illustrates why Intelligent Design creationism > isn't science. They are scrabbling to put up a facade, but science > isn't about words in a journal or a collection of degrees: it is a > process. It's science if it is being continually tested, if there is > research being done to critically evaluate the components of the > theory. There is no research being done on intelligent design, nor can > there be--there aren't any testable hypotheses in their proposal." > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/6/95138/89017 > > It's good that tmo scientists try to get published, but the spirit of > the whole effort seems to fall more under PR than science - and until > at least one independent scientist is impressed enough by the > maharishi effect research to begin the long process of replication, > then it's still an proven theory. >
The ME, yes. However, indendent scientists have been testing TM claims for a long time. Some are persuaded that TM works best on things like hypertension, and some are not. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/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/
