--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > 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 extrapolation > > > pretty weak. > > > > Judy, Yagyas and intercessory prayer are different but they > > both seem to rely on 'action at a distance' through some kind > > of non-physical intervention via the human mind and experience. > > The philosophical conundrum here is how does something that is > > non-physical affect a physical entity. A physicist would > > currently have to rely on gravity, the strong interaction, the > > weak force, or the electromagnetic force to attempt to explain > > such a thing. Saying it is 'consciousness' does not help at > > present because scientists cannot agree on what consciousness > > is or whether it can actually do anything. > > Sure. It's just that the methodology of each is so different > (see my comments to Curtis for one huge difference) that > extrapolating from tests of one to the efficacy of the other > really doesn't make much sense. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Or rather, the results were not confirmed, right? > > > > Yes, not confirmed, the null hypothesis confirmed. 'Proven' > > is loose usage. > > To my mind, it's misleading. Not that you intended to > mislead; just saying. > > > > Do you have a cite for this? > > > > Marks, D.F. & Kammann, R. (1980). The Psychology of the Psychic. > > Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.ISBN 0-87975-121-5 (cloth) > > > > I read this many years ago and I think there may be a second > > edition. It went over the Targ-Puthoff remote viewing > > experiments. As I recall, a replication of the experiment > > failed to confirm. > > OK. Was the replication study published in a journal, or > just in the book, do you recall?
I only read of it in the book. I am assuming (without recollection) that references are in the book, which I no longer have. I remember the analysis of the experiment was quite detailed, and why they thought it was not a valid confirmation. One problem in this area is believers are so convinced they are correct that negative results do not faze them, and non-believers are also often exactly the same and no amount of proof will convince them either. But there are definite ways to design an experiment, and at least a few good scientists exist that do take care to try not to fool themselves; falling into the trap of one's own belief is psychologically quite difficult to surmount. It amounts to setting up an experiment in a way that attacks every point you can think of to prove what you think is wrong. Not everyone seems suited to this task. One of the most fun essays on this was Richard Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science': http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.php > > > Their subsequent investigation showed that the replicators had > > removed verbal queues that allowed the graders to match up > > locations with drawings. This had something to do with how the > > hits and misses of remote viewing experiment were categorised. > > When they were able to get raw data from Targ and Putoff, they > > found such verbal information in the data. When the same data > > was truly blinded, the remote viewing failed with the original > > experimental data. > > I looked up the book on Amazon (the second edition). > There were a couple of positive reader reviews and a > couple of negative ones. One of the negative ones had > this to say: > > "In their 'replication' of Targ's remote viewing experiments the authors > selected as the viewers a few students and a housewife who 'believed > themselves to be psychic to some degree.' Of course, they did not believe in > the existence of the phenomena they were testing -- otherwise they might have > allowed themselves to make the assumption that it might require someone who > practices. If you were testing 'exceptional athletic abilities' would you > select a subject who played softball once a year and 'believed he was > athletic to some degree' or would you select a professional athlete? For > remote viewing, you could select members of the Hawaii Remote Viewers' Guild, > for example. Their intent was not to study the phenomena using an open-minded > scientific approach, but to 'debunk' it - in the typical sarcastic style." > > I gather it wasn't "the authors" of the book who did the > replication study, but this is an interesting point. If the > replication had been attempted without verbal cues but with > practiced remote viewers, would the results have been the > same? (Targ and Puthoff, I believe, did use practiced remote > viewers.) > > Do you know whether Targ and Puthoff responded substantively > to the critique in the book? I'm not any more inclined to > take a "debunking" of a study conducted by careful scientists > like Targ and Puthoff at face value than I am whatever the > study claims to prove (unless there's hard evidence of > outright fraud). I've just seen too many instances of the > original researchers responding to a debunking by pointing out > sloppiness, ignorance, misinterpretation, and sometimes even > outright misrepresentation of their studies on the part of the debunkers. I > need to see several rounds of debunking- > counterdebunking before I make up my mind. > > FWIW, Prometheus Books was founded by the co-founder of > CSICOP, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer, and has specialized > in books by skeptics, although it's branched out into many > other areas by now. Yes. I found the book fascinating, but as I said I read it a long time ago. There is an interesting article in the current issue of Skeptical Inquirer about research done under grants for alternative medicine by the NIH. If the results are accurate, and I cannot vouch for that, very few of the experiments have published results, or even a summary report of the findings. These are presumably studies more in line with high quality clinical trials. If this report is accurate, then it would appear that alternative medicine does not work so well or at all in most cases, an inference made based on the fact researchers are not reporting what they found. A lot of money has gone into these trials, several billion apparently over the last 10 or more years. Science is difficult in areas where metaphysical explanations are the norm. Such as TM research. I do not think TM research is particularly well done usually. For me TM is a tool, a strategy for enlightenment, it has an experiential value. But enlightenment is not really a scientific concept, it is explained by many different traditions in equally many ways, but none of these ways really have the visceral physicality of physics or chemistry, and most describe it as transcendental to what we know of the physical world, so there is an explanatory disconnect with current scientific knowledge, difficult or impossible to bridge. Maharishi tried to create a bridge, but the metaphysical backdrop makes such an attempt kind of half-hearted. TM has worked really well for me, but my observation of others indicate it has worked well for many, and not so well for some. TM does a lot of the grunt work of spiritual growth in my experience, over a long period of time. But just how universally effective it is for everyone I do not think is really known, TMO advertising aside. Unlike Vaj, I do not think TM is a training wheels meditation, but I also feel that it is intellectually embedded in a matrix of a lot of counterproductive crazy stuff that works against it being its most effective. People end up believing stuff rather than querying themselves about what is happening to them. If TM results in the self-sufficiency it claims, then in that sense, everyone who succeeds with it would end up as a kind of rebel to the cause, independent from the very ideas that led them into it in the first place, transcendent to them, and able to formulate their own ideas of what their experience is to them, what it is like. Independent spirits if you will. It is interesting that those considered enlightened tend to end up being the nexus of their own movements, like branches of a tree breaking off from the trunk. And the trunk gets older and worn as this goes on. Growth and decay forevermore. Eventually the tree, with all its branches, falls, and a new tree begins somewhere else, or doesn't. > > The Templeton Study was done by Herbert Benson. > > http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(05)00649-6/abstract >
