I spent a month with David OJ studying the collected papers. Some published research is better than others. One critical context to evaluate about research is what conclusions are being drawn from the studies. This is an area were even some good movement studies fall down IMO. In other words, it is possible to do a good study on improvements on a rod and frame test. It is another thing to extrapolate that this means that mediators have a more stable internal state of reference.
Although I share your enthusiasm for the scientific method as a tool to expand knowledge, I don't forget that it is always humans using this tool. It is never practiced in purity. The TM studies are not all on one level of reliability, published or not. David went into a lot of detail about which tests were more rigorous than others. Getting published is only one aspect in evaluating the credibility of scientific research. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > "I AM THE ONLY ONE on FFL that is that open minded on the topic," > > > > NO. > > So Curtis states that he is open to scientific research. Thank God > someone here FFL is not an anti-science freak like Huckabee, Ted > Haggard, George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh. Curtis also > believes in research published in respected peer reviewed scientific > journals, and that the more studies on a topic the more robust is its > stated outcomes and effects. > Good for you Curtis, for standing up for science and research > published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals. Science is > the only hope for humankind, not these anti-science clowns like the > Neocons that want to take us back to the dark ages, and people like > Turq, Lurk, Burt, Squirt, and Boo, Ru, Sue, and Poo, and other anti- > science freaks here on FFL > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > > > <dhamiltony2k5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Heart of TM-jihad as expressed by Off_World: > > > > > > > > "you are not remotely qualified to make > > > > that judgment. Only scientists are, and they have overwhelmingly > > > > found the science in TM studies to be robust. That is why > sceintists > > > > at the NIH gave $20 million (and rising) in research money to > > > > Maharishi University, and more than 5 major universities in the > US > > > > are currently engaged in research on TM. Over 200 studies in > peer- > > > > reviewed scientific journals... and STILL anti-science people > like > > > > you ( a lot like George Bush and the anti-evolution crowd) want > to > > > > destroy science and everything it has built. Your type belong > in the > > > > dark ages. > > > > > > > > Science is the future, and peer-reveiwed published research is > your > > > > future but you are afraid of it. > > > > > > > > Get used to it, it is not going away despite the best efforts > of you > > > > anti-science people. > > > > > > > > To me there is no lower people than anti-science people like the > > > > fundie Christians and fundie Muslims. > > > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/157512 > > > > > > > > TM-Jihad!!!!!!!TM-Jihad!!!!!TM-Jihad!!!!!TM-Jihad!!!!TM- > > > Jihad!!!!!!!!>> > > > > > > That is typical of anti-science fundies to say things I did not > say. > > > Your 'TM-Jihad' words you pin on me because of being an anti- > science > > > fundamentalist. I am not interested in TM philosophy or > beliefs...I > > > said that I would go by research only, wether it goes against TM, > or > > > for TM. > > > > > > I AM THE ONLY ONE on FFL that is that open minded on the topic, > and > > > can say with hinesty that, for society at large, I will go by > what > > > peer-reviewed research published finds. Period. > > > > > > I only go by research published in respected peer-reviewed > scientific > > > journals. I am the only one on FFL that has said I will change my > > > mind if the research changes. I, unlike the anti-science crowd, > am > > > the ONLY one on FFL that STATES CLEARLY that I would change, > based on > > > solid research as stated above. This makes everyone else on this > > > board an anti-science fundamentalist. I will change my mind on > the > > > whole thing if even only 1/4 of the research published in > respected > > > peer-reviewed journals goes the other way. I will change my > > > recommendations of the practice on that basis alone. But > > > fundamentlaists put words in your mouth which were not there, > because > > > they are afraid of the truth. They want to keep believing in > santa- > > > claus and the tooth fairy and uncorroborated claims. > > > I don't. > > > > > > My experiences are tremendous, but to me that is no proof of > anything > > > whatsoever. Only research published in respected peer-reviewed > > > scientific journals is proof of anything. The anti-science crowd > on > > > FFL want to ignore science, and just like the anti-science nuts > among > > > the Neocons they want to put words in your mouth. > > > > > > It is quite amazing, and that you save, or go and look for all > those > > > posts, shows your fundamentalist fanaticism, and then put meaning > > > there that was not there. This is typical behaviour of the anti- > > > science practices of the fundamentalist christians and muslims, > and > > > people like George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Haggard, Condi Rice, > > > Jerry Falwell and other ignorant nutcases. > > > > > > The future for the 21st century is research published in > respected > > > peer-reviewed scientific journals. Period. > > > Get used to it. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > . > > > > > >
