--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Bill (William)Simmons" 
<unclewas@> wrote:
> >
> > I cut and pasted this claim from a MUM web page claiming that  
> > as little as 1% of population is practising TM "the trend of 
> > crime rates is REVERSED. 
> >
> Think it through carefully. It is entirely possible that the ME 
doesn't work. On the other 
> hand, statistical analysis  require LARGE groups of test subjects. 
For something like the 
> ME, the group required to notice the effect reliably might 
conceivably be much larger than 
> Fairfield itself. Consider the Taste of Untopia course. The effect 
on Fairfield would be large 
> just because everyone is there, but the effect of several people 
running stop signs in a 
> hurry to get to the Domes for group practice would be many times 
larger than, say, a 10% 
> reduction in traffic violations by the local non-meditating 
> Likewise, the Maharishi Effect WITHIN a group of sidhas might also 
be large, but the 
> redution in crime rate affecting the group itself would be 
overwhelmed by the presence of 
> a single sidha who happened to be a pickpocket (this happened 
during a course in DC--
> don't know if the person was a sidha or just wandered in off the 
street but the police were 
> called because of an incident--either way, a single individual's  
behavior in a group of 
> 10,000 can skew the ressults in ways that don't happen when you 
look at the changes in 
> behavior in a group of one million or 10 million or a billion, even 
if the effect is far, far 
> smaller than in the group of sidhas allegedly having the effect).
> If you want a truely silly example, that really happened, consider 
the ME and its affect on 
> sewage problem. Nothing in the theory says much about such a 
measure, but in fact, the 
> immeditate effect of the ME in Fairfield was todestroy the town's 
sewage system. 8000 
> people in a town of 8000 getting up at the same time, using the 
bathroom at the same 
> time, and flushing at the same time, explodes sewers. It's all the 
faultof the ME.
> Statisticians call it the "Law of Large Numbers" --things behave 
differently when you look 
> at small populations and large populations.
> Again, this doesn't say anything about whether or not the ME
> exists, but it DOES explain why you can't disprove the ME by 
> looking at the local effects in Fairfield.

This is an example of what Curtis accuses the TMO
of doing: "carefully wording" the ME claims to be

Oops.  Except that the Law of Large Numbers wasn't
invented by the TMO, was it?  It's a standard 
principle of statistics, right?  So therefore,
when you're doing a statistical analysis, you *have*
to take the Law of Large Numbers into account, which
means, as you just said, that the ME theory can't be
falsified by evidence that the crime rate in Fairfield
has gone up without violating statistical principles.

> It also explains why much of the research on the local effects in 
fairfield is just pure 
> marketing. Fairfield is a lousy place to conduct ME studies, and 
deep down inside, the TM 
> researchers know this. You can't prove the ME or even offer 
reliable support for the ME, by 
> looking at local statistics, but it DOES make for nice woo-woo feel 
good reports when 
> things get better in Fairfield during a big course.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to