--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > In an exploratory study on Pure Consciousness, the only > > baseline needed is between episodes of pure consciousness > > and the rest of the meditation period. The subjects provide > > their own baseline. > > > > Once you establish that there is a distinction that can be > > made in those specific subjects, you can then start to compare > > them with people who don't report regular episodes of pure > > consciousness, but until you establish that there is something > > to study, using a control group makes no real sense. You don't > > even know what to be looking for in the first place. > > So like I said, "special" science. Why are you replying?
I just wanted to get back to this for a moment, because it's such an outstanding example of the arrogance of ignorance. Barry was wrong to call it "special science." Lawson patiently explained why. And Barry responds, not having understood what Lawson was telling him, reasserting his mistake, and then asking, "Why are you replying?" This is why it's sometimes necessary to "shoot the messenger." When the messenger carries a false message-- whether he's aware of it or not--and tries to throw his weight around as if his false message was the last word, you need to do what you can to make sure anyone who might be affected by his messages knows he can't be trusted. It's not impossible that at some point this messenger could carry an authentic, accurate message without knowing it. The point is you need to verify any message from him with some more reliable source before you take it seriously, because he doesn't care, and doesn't even know how to tell, whether it's accurate or not. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Not all studies require controls. Some of the early Pure > > > > Consciousness studies were merely trying to establish what > > > > physiological correlates (if any) could be found for the > > > > self-reports of Pure Consciousness episodes. Control groups > > > > don't really make sense in that context. > > > > > > Because this is "special" science, doncha know? > > > > > > You don't need the control groups you need in any > > > other EEG study if you're doing "special" science. > > > > > > You don't need to compare the results you expected > > > to find to any kind of baseline because...let's face > > > it...no baseline can possibly compare meaningfully > > > to the "special" thing we're researching. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2012, at 1:40 PM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > There's no such thing as "proper controls" in an EEG study on hand- > > > > > > picked subjects. > > > > > > The subjects in many of the Pure Consciousness studies were > > > > > > selected because they were self-reporting regular periods of Pure > > > > > > Consciousness > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you meant to say is "they didn't use any" because they wanted to > > > > > > > > > > "handpick their results". It's meaningless to test EEG without EEG > > > > > controls. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
