--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Curtis, think you are going a little overboard with your rejecting a > lot > of yogic science. > > I just said it is faith based, and it is. I don't share your faith. > You also pick and choose what you have faith in. Just putting the > words yogic and science together does not make it so. I see no reason > to believe that the methods of science have anything to do with these > claims. Do you think the early yogis did double blind studies on > their sounds to determine their effects? No it as Maharishi says is > traditional. > > You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in > your attempt > to debase TM. > > What are you talking about, an "attempt to debase TM?" I just don't > buy into all the beliefs, I practice TM and think it is a nice > relaxation technique. So what is the baby, all the beliefs that > surround the practice? > > There are differences between different > sounds and their effect > upon the human nervous system. > > Restating the dogma is not providing more information. I don't > believe that the guys who claim this are basing it on more than > religious tradition. ..
All good points. However, the hypothesis has not been shown to be invalid. Thus, while skepticism is always good for unsubstantiated claims, it seems to me that its reasonable, healthy, and even "truthful" to remain open to the possibility of such. Even if its a low probability play. Otherwise it would appear to be dogmatism that "wild" stuff must a priori be false. Dogmatists against dogmatists.
