--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > You are trying to make a case that you can make a low > > > level vetting decision and I am not buying it. > > > > Yes, I know. You're using your "epistemic humility" to > > relieve you of the necessity to do any due diligence, > > because that way you can continue to hint darkly that > > it's all a big scam. > > Ahem. If this were true, wouldn't YOU be using > your "epistemic hubris" to claim that something > *you know nothing about* is *not* a scam?
Obviously not, because I've done my due diligence, so I *do* know something about it. Barry, since you haven't read the exchange, almost any comment you make about it will be a function of *your* epistemic hubris. If one of your comments gets something right, it'll be purely accidental. Your comment above gets it wrong. What I was referring to was not the validity of the research cited in the paper, which I *don't* have any basis to evaluate, but the credibility of the journal and its editors. I've made that distinction over and over in the exchange with Curtis. He gets it. But you haven't read it. You're not helping Curtis out by inadvertently trying to knock down straw men you've created because you don't know what the exchange was about. > That, after all, is your default position in all > of this -- blindly defending a TM paragon who in > your opinion has been "unjustly accused." And if you'd read the exchange you're commenting on, you'd know the only thing I was defending O-J from was Curtis's accusation that he'd published in this journal because he couldn't get the paper published anywhere else. Curtis has acknowledged he was in error on this point. I *quoted* his acknowledgment in the very post you're commenting on: > > Your most legitimate complaint. i withdraw my suspicions > > that he was shopping this paper around and landed here. If you had actually *read* my post, you'd know that. But you weren't interested in anything but "Get Judy," so you look like a horse's ass, again. I'm > mentioning this because you seem to be -- again > -- unable to discern your own *posting trends*. I know exactly what my "posting trends" are, thank you very much. > It's as if in your mind you only leap into these > frays to "defend someone" when they need defending > out of some noble sense of "outraged fairness." > But that's not how it really happens. The *trend* > that you fail to discern, especially when someone > calls you on being a TB, is *what* you choose to > defend. Nine times out of ten it's TM, the TMO, > Maharishi, or some piece of TM dogma or lore. > > Seems to me that your *reason* for leaping in to > defend David OJ can be argued to have nothing to > do with some outraged reaction to "unfairness" on > Curtis' part. That's just your "cover story." It > seems to me, *based on your posting trends*, that > the more likely rationale for getting into shit > like this as often as you do, and trying to "kill > the messenger" as often as you do, is that what > pushes your buttons is, in fact, the "hint" that > it's all a scam. Nope. If you actually read my posts, you'd know that what I was getting on Curtis about was his hypocrisy about "epistemic humility," of which his comments on O-J's paper were a particularly egregious example. TM-related stuff is the area it shows up in most often here in Curtis's posts but hardly the only area. This instance was especially blatant, so I chose to make an example of it. And if you had actually read the exchange, you'd have seen just how vigorously I was defending O-J's paper: > > > A review paper invited by the journal editors that > > > didn't undergo peer review and was published along with > > > 14 others on the same topic does not qualify as > > > impressive in my book. Which Curtis acknowledged: > > I stand corrected here Judy. I am sorry for saying you > > bought into the paper's credibility. I have also repeatedly agreed with him that neither he nor I is in a position to evaluate the research cited in the paper. Again, you'd know that if you'd read the exchange. As to your broader point, *of course* I tend to defend TM-related stuff from unfair criticism. Most of the folks here are critics, so I try to provide a little balance when their criticisms are unfair. That annoys you, because you want yourself and others to be able to make unfair criticisms without challenge. That's why you keep trying to make me into a TB, to discredit my challenges *without actually addressing them*, just as you attempt to do in this post. If you were honest, though, you'd have to acknowledge that if I'm found challenging unfair criticism of TM more often than unfair criticism of something or someone else, it's because so much of the discussion here has to do with TM. I haven't done a statistical analysis (nor have you), but "nine times out of ten" is most likely too high. Among other things, you're overlooking my challenges in the areas of feminism and politics. > IMO you can't allow that suggestion to pass because > if it were true YOU are the victim of a scam, and > have been for decades. > > Defending some researcher out of a sense of > "fairness" from Curtis' "unfair" suggestions > doesn't, after all, explain why you're still up > at 1:20 in the morning trying to perpetuate an > argument about this. Sure it does. First of all, Curtis is perpetuating the argument just as much as I am, trying to defend his criticisms from my challenges. The time of my post has nothing to do with it. Sometimes I'm up late. I happened to be up late last night. I didn't stay up late just to respond to Curtis's latest; I wasn't ready to go to sleep. Compulsively defending the > actions and/or "good name" of a major figure in > the same cult you belong to from suggestions that > his "science" is more scam than science does. Obviously I don't "belong" to any "cult," even if you consider the TMO a cult. I'm a thoroughly independent practitioner. If I were a TB cult member--just for one example--I'd have to be defending MMY from the accusations about his philandering, but that's not the case, is it? Talk about your "major figure"! Again, because you haven't read the exchange, you haven't the foggiest idea of what Curtis and I have been arguing about. The one defense of O-J's "good name" I made, Curtis has acknowledged was correct. In his "epistemic humility," he didn't bother to read the information on the journal's Web site, so he made an incorrect assumption about the status of the paper, and based on that incorrect assumption, another incorrect assumption about why the paper was published in that journal rather than somewhere else. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or otherwise of the science reviewed in the paper. > I'm thinkin' that the thing that really has you > still up arguing at 1:20 in the morning is -- > besides an insane desire to "beat" Curtis, at > *anything* -- is that you intuit that if you > allow Curtis' "scam hints" to stand, YOU could > be perceived as Just Another Stupid Victim of > that scam. And for emotional and ego reasons > you can't allow that to happen. Wrongaroonie. If all the research O-J cited in the paper could be proved to be a scam, it wouldn't affect my commitment to TM in the slightest. It doesn't depend on EEG measurements of lucid dreaming or witnessing sleep, or much of any of the scientific claims, for that matter. It certainly doesn't depend on the credibility of O-J's research. But yes, I'll defend TM's science--or any other kind of science--from unfair criticism. Here's a novel thought for you: TM critics should be just as interested in making sure criticisms of TM's science are fair as TM's defenders are. Otherwise they're guilty of the same sin of propagandizing as the TMO is accused of being. If you're no more honest than the folks whom you're calling dishonest, what kind of case have you really made against them? Having acknowledged that he wasn't in a position to evaluate the research cited by O-J in the paper, Curtis tried to make a case against it by calling the credibility of the journal in which the paper was published into question. There's nothing wrong with that as a tactic, but he didn't do his due diligence, so he ended up making a very flimsy case that was itself vulnerable to being called in question. That's what our argument was really about. Curtis was engaging in propaganda rather than fair criticism. > Just my opinion. Now you get to present yours. > > Try to do so this time without declaring whose > opinion "won." That's "epistemic hubris," too. Please cite at least one other post in which I've declared that my opinion "won." If you can't, you need to acknowledge that the "epistimic hubris" is yours. > The other posters here get to make up their own > minds...you declaring what they've decided has > nothing whatsoever to do with what they decide. :-) And I've declared what they've decided where, please? Again, cite posts in which I've done so, or acknowledge your own "epistemic hubris."
