--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > <snip> > > David's publishing record has taken a kind of downward turn > > of late. Last article I heard of was in a pseudoscience/ > > paranormal/UFO journal IIRC. > > In fact, what O-J published in the Journal of Scientific > Exploration was not a "study" but a response/rebuttal to > a paper published by anti-TMer Barry Markovsky and his > colleague E. Sales in a sociology journal that attempted > to trash the Maharishi Effect study in the Journal of > Conflict Resolution. The sociology journal had refused to > publish O-J's response. > > That paper is available here (PDF): > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/utility/showDocumentFile?objectID=33 > > Since Vaj has chosen to repeat his lies about the Journal > of Scientific Exploration, I'll repeat my debunking of > those lies from a previous post (#235995, from December; > also see the second part of #235981, on the same topic): > > Vaj's dishonesty continues to infect this > forum. His lies are most egregious when he's > been caught in a falsehood and is trying to > exonerate himself, as in this case. > > His very deliberate misrepresentations of > the Journal of Scientific Exploration, > intended to put TM research in a bad light > because TM has published one article in the > journal, are quite directly parallel to the > misrepresentations of the climate-change > deniers with regard to the hacked emails. Hard > up for evidence to support their perspective, > in both cases they have to resort to inventing > it--and hope that their audience will be too > lazy and credulous to check up on them. > > Vaj has repeatedly referred to the Journal of > Scientific Exploration as "a UFO journal" (or > "UFO journals," to make it sound as though > TM regularly publishes in many such journals). > Up till now, he hasn't actually named the > journal, knowing that if he were to do so and > anyone were to check up on his claim, they'd > realize it was a lie. > > But apparently he *did* read my latest post > pointing out that he was lying, or someone > told him about it, so he figured he'd brazen > it out by naming the journal and then telling > a bunch of detailed lies about the nature of > the journal. > > That's a standard technique of malicious > propagandists: citing what they purport to be > documentation of their false claims that > actually doesn't support the claims at all. > They figure folks won't other to check but > will just assume that if the propagandist > provides a citation, it must be because it > backs up what the propagandist has said. > > Which is exactly what Vaj did: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > <snip> > > The current issue has papers on the Loch > > Ness monster and several UFO papers. > > It's always a hoot to look at when you > > need a good laugh. And of course MUM > > "researchers" publish there now. > > It looks like they've finally found their > > niche in the scientific community! > > http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal.html > > In fact, TM researchers have published there > *once*. There's no indication whatsoever of a > trend, contrary to Vaj's knowingly disingenuous > implication. > > And in fact, Vaj has no idea what's in the > current issue, because its contents aren't > listed on the Web site. > > The latest issue whose contents are listed is > the third issue for 2008 (the journal is a > quarterly). > > Maybe Vaj was hoping folks wouldn't notice > if he described the contents of the *first* > issue listed, published in 1987, and said it > was the current issue. > > And even so he misrepresents the contents: > there was *one* article on the Loch Ness > monster and *one* article on UFOs. (Another > malicious propagandist's trick is to use > plurals when referring to a single instance.) > > Neither paper took a believer's stance. Both > were scholarly analyses of available materials > on their topics (the PDFs of the articles are > available on the page). > > The other articles in the first issue: "A Brief > History of the Society for Scientific > Exploration"; "Alterations in Recollection > of Unusual and Unexpected Events"; "Toward a > Quantitative Theory of Intellectual Discovery > (Esp. in Phys.)"; and "Engineering Anomalies > Research." PDFs for all these are available > on the page. > > The last issue listed for which PDFs are > available is from 2007. The last issue listed > containing an article on UFOs is 2006 (and > that was simply a historical review of the > information that has accumulated, pro and con.) > > But let's look at the titles of the articles in > the most recent issue listed, the third for 2008: > > Unusual Atmospheric Phenomena Observed Near > Channel Islands, UK, 23 April 2007 > The GCP Event Experiment: Design, Analytical > Methods, Results > New Insights into the Links between ESP and > Geomagnetic Activity > Phenomenology of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine Use: A > Thematic Analysis > Altered Experience Mediates the Relationship > between Schizo-typy and Mood Disturbance during > Shamanic-Like Journeying > Persistence of Past-Life Memories: Study of Adults > Who Claimed in Their Childhood to Remember a > Past Life > > Gee, nothing about UFOs or the Loch Ness monster. > > In fact, of the approximately 500 articles the > journal has published since 1987, around 25 > have been about UFOs--5 percent. (The frequency > of such articles has declined steadily over the > years.) > > In Vaj's mind, 5 percent is enough to smear > JSE--and the TM researchers--by calling it a > "UFO journal." No wonder he didn't name it for > so long. > > Now he thinks he can wiggle out from under that > lie by identifying the journal and *lying about > what it contains*. > > I've looked at a bunch of the PDFs available on > the article listings that deal with some of the > more far-out phenomena. None that I've examined > credulously promotes the phenomena they deal with. > At most, they analyze skeptical debunkings and > point out where they're inadequate to explain the > phenomena. > > Many of the articles are purely sociological; > the Loch Ness monster article in the first > issue, for example, categorizes the reports > found in different media (newspapers, > magazines, books) as to their relative levels > of belief in the phenomenon, as well as their > accuracy as to the hard facts involved. The > conclusions of the study are that newspaper > articles are the least credulous, as well as > being the least accurate; and that books are > the most credulous *and* the most accurate. > > Anybody who actually *reads* any of the > articles will see that they're not gee-whiz > endorsements of unusual phenomena; they're > serious scholarly attempts to examine the > evidence for them pro and con. Some of the > papers are of the type you'd expect to find > in Skeptical Inquirer, in fact: one, for > instance, debunks several published scientific > studies on crop circles that purport to > document anomalies that rule out human origin; > another debunks "spirit photographs." > > There are also papers that reflect on how > people deal with anomalous phenomena. One from > 1988 by Bauer, for example, is titled > "Commonalities in Arguments over Anomalies." > The author makes an interesting point: > > "The study of anomalies...can usefully bring to > our attention the substantial areas of > ignorance that subsist at the edges and > interstices of established knowledge." > > This statement epitomizes the purpose and > approach of the Journal of Scientific > Exploration. If you want to call that > "pseudoscience," you're only revealing your own > intellectual rigidity and lack of curiosity. > > Or, of course, your desire to smear a movement > you have a grudge against. >
-In the flow of FFL, thank you for clarifying that.
