Vaj wrote: > > What I was asking was there any hint > > that some of the research had been "fudged" for PR purposes?
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can't think of any examples of that because I believed the > research was valid. Since then I have read perspectives of the > research that exposes the weaknesses, but while in the group I was > not interested in this perspective at all. There was never a > sincere commitment to the scientific method, so we used the charts > superficially and we waved the whole collected studies in the air > to give the impression that it was all scientifically verified. If > a person nailed me on any details of a chart, which sometimes > happened, I would manage them with crowd techniques like getting > the audience to shush them down. For the record, here's what you wrote on alt.m.t in 1997: "As far as TM using science as marketing instead of as true science, what I mean by this is that the claims of TM are not presented in a form that can be falsifified if the evidence goes the other way. During my 4 years at MIU I was very close to the TM studies in progress and never saw a desire to see if TM works. It was always assumed that it did and the interpretations from the data were adjusted to fit the results. Most claims are not stated in a form that can be falsified by evidence. For example if a new meditator feels good from TM, this is TM working, and if they feel bad, it is un stressing, again TM working. This is not acceptable scientific practice. I experienced that the people around maharishi were so eager to please that data that did not support claims was never brought up. More importantly the spirit of scientific integrity was never respected by a man who by his own admission has a contempt for the scientific method. That is what Andrew was conveying in my perhaps glib but still I believe accurate 3 out of 4 dentists surveyed quote. If the spirit of science was really alive in the movement it would not blacklist people like Benson who published unpopular results." (The "3 out of 4 dentists surveyed" refers to a quote from you in the Washington Post--not from Andrew Skolnick in his JAMA article--that Maharishi uses science "as a marketing tool, in the same way that 'three out of four dentists surveyed' sells toothpaste but is not science.") There are actually quite a few factual inaccuracies in that earlier alt.m.t quote. Are there any of them you'd like to correct now? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hik1AB/bOaOAA/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/
