--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific > > method. You give more or less weight to different descriptions > > as you discover if it applies to more areas that strengthen the > >overall theory. Then you test the shit out of all the falsifiable > theories you can conjure up.
Can yu share with us your list of how you have tested (hopefully the shit out of) the falsifiability of your theory that the practice of TM, twice day, is a religion? >Occasionally very good evidence that > cannot be denied comes along and blows your theory up, and a new model > is necessary to explain it and what you have discovered before. This > is happening less and less, not more and more in science, because we do > understand some stuff pretty well and we are building on that. > > > > > > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable predictions > give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who already "know" > their effect and how they work to find all the evidence they need. Which reminds me of the method some have used to establish that the 2x day practice of TM is a religion. What is your model for predicting something is a religion? And how is it falsified?
