--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > I have no way to evaluate the two German editor's > > > > background > > > > > > Yes, you do. You could look them up on the Web, as I did. > > > . . . > > > Schredl heads the sleep lab at the Central Institute > > > of Mental Health in Mannheim > > > > Means nothing to me. > > > > <and has published five books> > > > > Means nothing to me. > > > > and over 70 peer-reviewed journal articles: > > What it seems to "mean," in the mind of someone > trying to use it champion someone she's never met > other than finding his name on Google, is "If > he's published five books
And over 70 peer-reviewed journal articles. , he's a scientist. So > there. Nanner nanner boo boo." > > L. Ron Hubbard published 1084 books; he must be > a scientist, too. Hubbard prolly didn't have his books published by established scientific publishers; nor did he have over 70 peer-reviewed journal articles published in respectable scientific journals; nor did he head a laboratory at a well-known, highly respected university institute; nor was a scientific journal of which he was an editor sponsored (i.e., funded by) the top research university in Germany. <snip> > What I'm fascinated by is that THE CORRECTOR is jump- > ing through all these hoops to seemingly prove the > validity (or at the very least non-bogosity) of a > study THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO PROVE ANYTHING. Right! After Curtis had jumped through all kinds of hoops to discredit the "study" AS THOUGH IT CLAIMED TO PROVE ANYTHING. > Everyone knew that what TMers call "witnessing sleep" > and what lucid dreamers experience were different > phenomena, producing different subjective states. That > is apparent even in OJ's own introduction in the paper. Actually, what the abstract of the paper says is that because subjective reports of lucid dreaming can easily be confused with those of witnessing, researchers should distinguish between the two using EEG measurements. > So there can have been *no possible surprise* in find- > ing that they produce different types of EEG activity. Quite probably not. But the paper cites research that *describes which type of EEG indicates which type of dreaming experience*. Just assuming the EEGs are different, in other words, butters no parsnips. You have to know what the EEG signatures for each *are* to screen for the two types of dreaming. > So the "design concept" of the study seems to me to > have been, "Let's compare obvious apples to oranges, > and then when we discover what everyone -- even apple > supporters and orange supporters -- knows, that apples > and oranges are different things But not what color they are or what the texture of their skin is, in this case. , we can try to use > the study to sell apples. We know from past experience > that our apple TBs will believe anything. To them the > study will 'prove' something, especially if I tack some > mystical bullshit onto the version I share with them, > bullshit I wouldn't dare to show to real scientists." > > Someone who thinks they can please explain to me what > is inaccurate about my description of the "study design" > above. See above. (Although Barry, of course, won't read the post, even after having requested an explanation.) (Oh, and he also doesn't know what "study design" means.) > The "findings" of this "study" are a tremendous > *DUH*. All it "proves" is that apples are different > from oranges. Yet we have apple TBs, even on this forum, > jumping up and down and celebrating as if the "study" > somehow "proves" the supremacy of apples over oranges. Only one TB is "celebrating" (Nabby). What Barry has missed, of course, because he never looked at the paper itself, nor did he read the exchange between Curtis and me that he's commenting on, is that the paper *wasn't a study*. It was a review article citing previous research published in several dozen journals, not all by TMers. Plus which, it did not claim the "supremacy" of witnessing sleep over lucid dreaming, merely explained how to distinguish them via EEG. This is the paper that Curtis jumped through so many hoops trying to discredit, claiming that Orme-Johnson had published it in this journal (which Curtis also tried to discredit) because no respectable journal would accept it. But he crashed and burned because: (a) he wasn't aware that publication of papers in online scientific journals is considered perfectly respectable these days; (b) he didn't bother to do even the lowest-level vetting of the journal editors, which would have shown that one of the two was highly qualified in his field; (c) he didn't know the journal was sponsored by a wildly respectable research university; (d) he didn't realize the paper was *invited* by the journal editors (along with 14 others on the same topic); and (e) like Barry, he didn't bother to read either the paper or Orme-Johnson's description of it, which would have told him it wasn't a report of original research but a review paper. Barry's correct to put "study" in scare quotes, but only inadvertently. Again, because he didn't bother to read the exchange he's commenting on, much less the paper itself, or even O-J's description of it, he doesn't realize that the fact that it *wasn't a study* is precisely what I was pointing out to Curtis. Curtis was aiming his bazooka at a flea. Not only did he miss the flea, the bazooka blew up in his face.
