--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:00 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Yeah, new...it's perfectly legitimate to "not count" an > > anomalous event like *that*! What are you *thinking*? > > If you bitch about something as miniscule as disregarding > > data because it doesn't fit the all-important expectations, > > why you could set a precedent. And that precedent could > > pose problems when it comes time to splice in several > > extra frames of someone at mid-hop to show the expected > > result of "hovering." And we all *know* how bad that > > would be for the fate of the world! People would think > > that hopping was all that was going on and not flock to > > these all-important courses. What are you *thinking*? You > > must be one of those "anti-TMers" we hear so much about > > here. > > > > :-) > > > > More seriously, I think new has made the point that one > > can "interpret" "science" to show anything one wants. > > That's one reason I've never been impressed by the "TM > > science." It is "belief-driven" as opposed to truth-driven. > > There is no desire to show what really happens, only > > what is *expected* to happen. > > Interestingly much TMO research seems to use a "faux null hypothesis" > -- probably because earlier critics lambasted them for their lack of > a null hypothesis. New Morns astute observation just points out that > this central flaw of TM, belief-based research, while they now do > contain a "token" null hypotheses, are just that: tokens. >
Examples please, both of the criticism of the old research and of the new?
