--- In [email protected], gerbal88 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, Curtis -- Barry Markovsky called TM a stealth religion. I think > that is quite apt considering how he and his minions have suckered > so many ordinary folks into paying for the absurd claims of > opportunistic Maheshism. *If something good happens, we are > responsible; otherwise, we blame people for being negative.* > > Butt-bouncing for whirrled peas. Like Steve said, eventually people > will figure it out. > > I don't know, however, if the Maheshites' claims about the MishMash > Effect are, as you say, 'un-falsifiable'. Quite a lot got written > by actual scientists almost as soon as the TMO published.
<snicker> Even more pathetically unclear on the concept. Doesn't even know what "unfalsifiable" *means*; he thinks it means "some people claimed the TM researchers' conclusions were false." > If I can find any of those documents, I'll add them to the TMO the > Odd Side in the Files section. I'll be interested to see what gerbal comes up with. Markovsky's critique of the Jerusalem study used to be on Trancenet, but the Web site isn't accessible any longer. However, that page is mirrored at: http://www.lightlink.com/trance/research/markovsky2.shtml Orme-Johnson rebuts Markovsky's critique here: http://tinyurl.com/ax3ge The Jerusalem study was published in 1988; Markovsky's critique appeared seven years later, in 1995 ("almost as soon as the TMO published," according to gerbal). A critique was also published in the same journal as the Jerusalem study two years later, in 1990 ("almost as soon as the TMO published," according to gerbal). Orme-Johnson's rebuttal to that critique was published in the same journal that same year. Finally, a critique of the D.C. study was published in Skeptical Inquirer in September/October 2000, a year after the D.C. study ("almost as soon as the TMO published," according to gerbal). That critique is rebutted by Maxwell Rainforth here: http://istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html A page at Orme-Johnson's site TruthAboutTM.org discusses these and other criticisms of the two studies here: http://tinyurl.com/rz3g3 I'm not aware of any critiques published "almost as soon as the TMO published," but I'm sure gerbal has something in mind, don't you, gerbal? I'm also unaware of any critiques that haven't themselves been rather decisively rebutted by the TM researchers. Caveat: I don't think either of these studies, the Jerusalem or the D.C. study, are any more than suggestive; they're certainly not conclusive. I'm extremely skeptical that the ME theory can ever be conclusively documented to be valid, even if the ME does actually exist. 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/
