--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> 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?
I never said that. And I would never use this method to determine such a thing. I would use the definition of words to assess how these concepts are used. You can practice TM twice a day and not have it be your religion. But I also believe that teaching TM in schools is promoting a religious practice because of how it is taught and its origins. I can also drink wine and take bread in a church and consider it an type of piss poor Tapas bar fare. But that doesn't mean we should have a priest come in to third grade to see if it settles the kids down if he performs mass for them. You are trying to use the scientific method in the wrong place. There are other areas of knowledge that we use for such questions and the answers are not so clear cut. That is why we have courts to decide some of these question and you may disagree with their conclusions. > > >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? As I said, wrong application of the method. Science is cross cultural, these questions are culture bound. In the US we have made some distinctions that are meant to keep religious concepts from being taught outside religion classes. This is a big difference between our educational system and say, Afghanistan's. >
