Good, I hope I can irritate you more. You are WAY TOO SERIOUS to be on FFL. :-D
On 03/06/2013 04:32 PM, Sharalyn wrote: > What you write here not only confuses the issue with a lot of unrelated > fluff, it complicates it with unsubstantiated personal opinion and an > obviously prejudiced agenda. What gives you any authority to make the claims > you make? Have you personally worked in the research labs? I don't want an > answer to that for I can see by your style of writing that you can't give a > focused, non-emotional, objective response. I just wanted to express my > irritation that you used my question as a springboard for an off-topic > personal tirade. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: > >> On 03/06/2013 01:35 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: >>> The key is being able to answer the question: " Is there a test even in >>> principle, that could show that the theory is false?". It often involves >>> making the claim more precise. But even your second example: The brain >>> waves of students practicing TM show increased coherence, might be >>> unfalsifiable depending on how you define "coherence". And remember >>> coherence is a mathematical model being applied to the raw data. It is >>> very easy to massage the numbers to show some type of "coherence". For it >>> to be falsifiable it must be possible for someone to go through the test >>> and for them to say "our theory is not valid, coherence does not increase." >>> >>> But that isn't how the movement uses science for marketing. Movement >>> scientists would just continue to manipulate the data using different >>> formulas until something they could call coherence could be found. In TM >>> research, it is never a possible outcome that TM ever does anything bad to >>> a person, or that positive benefits are not "proven". If the experiment >>> doesn't show what they already believe, the frame around the experiment is >>> shifted until it shows something positive. >>> >>> Framing a test in a way that is falsifiable requires a detachment from the >>> outcome. You have to really care enough about the truth to plug up all the >>> loopholes that compromise falsifiability. We have many cognitive biases >>> toward winging it when it comes to our beliefs. Few people really want to >>> go through the hard work it would take to really test something. >>> >>> So yes you need precision in formulating the hypothesis, but that is not >>> enough. You have to understand how each variable affects the test. Our >>> big pharma testing system has the exact same problems movement research >>> has. They are always ready to turn capillary dilators into boner pills. >>> They are not setting up the research with big bucks to find out that the >>> pill does more harm than good. >>> >>> Lots of New Age "medical" practices operate this way. The results are so >>> vague that there is no way for you to conclude that it just didn't work. >>> Every result has an explanation, but the system itself is never tested >>> rigorously. >> Of course the problem there is that alternative medical practices simply >> don't have the money to do such testing. And some of those cures are so >> simple including ones that are even "kitchen cabinet" just using herbs >> you may have there. No money in that for big pharma so instead they try >> to destroy alternative medicine so they can sell you expensive cures. >> Unrestrained capitalism is a crime against humanity. >> >> That said, fortunately over the years some of the simple cures do get >> tested. I recall that in the 1970s a dentist in Florida had some >> program to use just baking soda for dental care. Of course he was >> lambasted as a "quack". Now go to your supermarket and take a look at >> toothpaste that includes or advertises baking soda used. Ayurveda >> suggests turmeric or even triphala as a mouth wash to prevent >> gingivitis. I have use Crest's Total Health which I noticed is as >> astringent as those two herbs and would bet that astringency is at the >> basis of the cure. >> > >
