--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > This post is an epistemological field day! It brings up many questions about > how we can be confident about what we know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > There have been a number of large well-designed studies > > > > > > > recently, such as the Templeton study, of 'intercessionary > > > > > > > prayer', which seem a lot like yagyas. These studies failed > > > > > > > to show any effect. > > The question of proof. Unlike the statement. Jesus saved me so I will live > forever when I die, these claims about effects in the world can be proven. If > they were true they would crush all skeptics. So Xeno had to use as close as > he could get to even find such a study. Why is that? Here is an area where > believers could shine, so why is this the only study that even comes close to > these claims? You could say that the religious people who are most into > yagyas don't care, but the movement has no such excuse and has been pitching > yagyas for decades now, the claim is in Maharishi's earliest books. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is intercessory prayer *enough* like yagyas to extrapolate > > > > > > the results of the prayer tests to yagyas? I can think of > > > > > > several differences that could render such extraplation > > > > > > pretty weak. > > Hard to argue with Judy here. Of course this is a generic > criticism whenever you have a study that doesn't use exactly > the same technique. So if some yagya guys's deal doesn't pan > out then it can be claimed that it wasn't Maharishi's super > yagyas.
Don't quite understand the last sentence here. What "super yagyas"? > But that is why applying science need requires humility and > she has a point. FWIW, the major difference between intercessory prayer and yagyas is that the kind of prayer that was tested, as I understand it, was free-form and ad lib among those who were praying; whereas there is no such variation with yagyas: they're performed ritualistically, strictly according to prescribed formulas, not just the words uttered but every movement, every bit of physical paraphernalia used, etc., etc., most likely including aspects I'm not even aware of. In this regard a yagya is more like the Catholic Mass, although obviously the purposes there are different. The fact that TM is taught and practiced in a strictly prescribed manner, as it happens, makes it an ideal technique for scientific study of their effects because the variables are minimal, in contrast to many other techniques. Ironically, this same characteristic *should* also make yagyas ideal for scientific study. But there are problems with variables in terms of the predicted *effects*, which are typically not very specific, and which do not include a time frame. That introduces the issue of unfalsifiability. If a yagya is performed, say, for an individual's increased prosperity, and no increase in the individual's income is apparent after six months, has the efficacy of the yagya been shown to be nonexistent? If those doing a study of an individual yagya imposed such specifics on the predicted effects in advance, could you still even call what they were studying a yagya? To what degree can you "tighten up" the protocols before you stray from what should have been the original purpose of the yagya? It all gets very complicated when you take this sort of thing into account. > > > > > > > Psychic, long-distance phenomena have been studied > > > > > > > for years without making a dent in the scientific > > > > > > > community as the results have never been clear cut, > > > > > > > and studies have been found to contain serious > > > > > > > flaws which became evident when replication > > > > > > > attempts failed, such as the Targ-Puthoff long > > > > > > > distance viewing study many years ago. The result > > > > > > > of this study seems to have been mentioned by MMY > > > > > > > in the Science of Being and Art of Living as an > > > > > > > established fact, but in fact, the result was > > > > > > > disproved. <snip> > > > > > > Or rather, the results were not confirmed, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a cite for this? > > Again Judy scores in something important to keep our eye on, > the distinction between disproving something and not > confirming it. There is a slight spin at work here though > because in science, not being able to replicate something > can be a bad sign for the claims. Of course. Where's the "spin"? "Disproved" is just inaccurate terminology. > It depends on the strength of the follow up studies and how good > the original research was. If there were fundamental flaws in > the first studies but not the second, it is as close to > disproving as you get in science sometimes. Right. But you still can't say the first study's results were "disproved." > It can be the > equivalent to no effect being found so no reason to support the > claims. We would have to hear specific criticism of the both > studies which I'll bet Judy is looking for. And again it > should be the believers who are the most rigorous in this area > to make sure that it gets confirmed. That is how science helps > detect bad protocol. I'll have to do some research in this > specific study, perhaps the discrediting went further than non > replication. Part of what I was looking for was whether there even was a study that failed to replicate Targ-Puthoff's results. I looked for some mention of such a study on the Web last night and couldn't locate one, but it was a quick search, so I could have missed it. What I *did* find was an extensive essay analyzing James Randi's chapter in "Flim-Flam" that supposedly debunked Targ and Puthoff's work in many specific areas. That analysis revealed all kinds of flaws in Randi's debunking, including misleading statements, undocumented statements, and possibly even knowingly false statements. The material includes Randi's comments on the analysis, plus responses to those comments, plus Randi's comments on the responses, plus responses to *those* comments. Here's the bulk of it, with links to the follow-ups: http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm Prescott isn't a scientist but a novelist who is interested in the paranormal; Randi, of course, isn't a scientist either. I was impressed by Prescott's thoroughness and fairness, and his *genuine* skepticism, his unwillingness to draw premature conclusions, either about Targ and Puthoff or Randi. Randi has done some excellent debunking work. He's also done some very sloppy debunking work that doesn't hold up to examination. IMHO, he isn't a genuine skeptic but what I call a skeptopath. Reaching a predetermined conclusion is more important to him than the validity of the methodology by which he reaches it. I don't know if Randi has actually claimed that Targ- Puthoff's remote viewing studies have been "disproved." I hope he's at least more careful than that. But the folks to whom he is a hero tend to be a lot looser in their use of terminology. In any case, what I wanted to know in asking Xeno for a cite was whether the "disproof" Xeno refers to had involved Randi's work on Targ-Puthoff. > > > > > Doesn't sound accurate. I read that book thoroughly when > > > > > it came out and there was no Autobiography of a Yogi stuff > > > > > in it. It is all about integrating TM into society. > > I don't think this is the best angle on disproving the claim > that it is in there. Doesn't read to me as if it were being presented as "disproof" of the claim. FWIW, I don't remember any remarks about remote viewing in SBAL either, but if there is one, it's most likely not very specific, so it might not stick in the mind. > I hope someone checks my SOB is buried under books I am more > likely to read. Xeno made the claim; he ought to be able to say where he found the reference. > > > > Actually I meant a cite for the Targ-Puthoff results being > > > > "disproved." I don't know about SBAL mentioning the study. > > > > Don't care about that one way or the other. > > > > You hate God and Maharishi. Period. > > Whether you are correct or accountable in your endless > > pursuits of putdowns does not matter the least. > > This is probably what caused me to post. Although typical > Nabbie I would like to make a case that this attitude does > not serve your cause well. What I want to know is, to whom was Nabby addressing this remark? It appeared to be in response to my follow-up post quoted immediately above it. That seems unlikely, but it also seems unlikely with regard to either whynotnow or Xeno, so I'm baffled. I certainly intended no "putdown" of MMY or God (??). It just isn't particularly interesting to me whether MMY mentioned remote viewing in SBAL. But if we wanted to indict MMY for having done so, we'd need to see whether Targ-Puthoff's remote viewing studies had, in fact, been debunked by the time SBAL was written.
