--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> 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. > >
While Vaj is welcome to draw his own conclusions from my observations, I should clarify that my comments did not, per se, IMO, "points out that this central flaw of TM, belief-based research, while they now do contain a "token" null hypotheses, are just that: tokens." I have no beef with the null hypotheses the researchers set up for the DC experiment -- that the ME will not effect crime rates. Nor do I issues with the alternative hypothesis they sought to establish by statistically rejecting the null hypothesis. I do however, have some issues with their methodology and data treatement as discussed in recent posts. > Examples please, both of the criticism of the old research and of the new?
