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?
Nope. But thanks for asking. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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.") > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/iDk17A/hOaOAA/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/
