off_world_beings wrote: > That is fairly common in science, and that is why the rigor aspect > needs to be constantly refined, and a lot of the TM research was > found be more robust than most studies in any science. But I am sad > to hear you say that you are throwing out ALL of modern science > because it doesn't suit your opinion. On that idea are fascist states > born. > > I won't go down that road. > THE ONLY (I stress, THE ONLY) way for people to agree on things in > the world are through study and replication under validated > conditions. A LOT of the most important research on TM is robust, and > only anti-science freaks bring up the argument that if 1 in 10 of > them is not strong, then they are, by default , ALL of them weak. > That is the way of the Neocons and I am appalled to see so many > people here on FFL, like Boo, Ru, Poo, Lurk, Turq, Smirk, Jurk, Curt, > and Burt, all acting EXACTLY like the Neocons when something in > science does not suit their opinion. > > I am appalled. > > OffWorld Okay, show me the peer-reviewed studies with tests between say: TM, SYDA Yoga, Sivananda Meditation, Vipassana, etc., etc. Those to my knowledge don't exist because TM would never allow it and neither would some of the others. What would you find: that TM is no better than any other technique.
BTW, what do you teach? One of the liberal arts?
