Ig Nobel Award goes to Maharishi's (onetime) Lord of Immortality
Andrew A. Skolnick
recognize scientists and others whose achievements "either cannot or
should not be reproduced" was a grand affair. Tonight, at Harvard
University's Sanders Theater, ten truly disserving men and women
received Ig Nobel prizes in honor of their ditzy if not dubious
achievements. Among the most disserving of these recipients was Dr.
Deepak Chopra, onetime "Lord of Immortality" for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
founder of Transcendental Meditation and the source of Total Knowledge.
The Ig Nobel Board of Governors chose Deepak for the 1998 Ig Nobel Prize
in Physics. I think the board made a most wise choice. Rumor has it
that he's been in the running for at least 4 years (at least, that's how
long I've been nominating him). The Ig Nobel Board cited Deepak's
"unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness."
The packed house of academics, students, and others from the Harvard
community were so moved when the award was accepted in Deepak's honor by
*Nobel* Laureate Sheldon Glashow (Physics, 1979), they broke out
chanting, "Dee-pak! Dee-pak! Dee-pak!" and I had to wipe a tear from my
eye.
Although Deepak no longer sits at the side of the Maharishi, the Yogi
nevertheless should be proud. Deepak is now the second person to win an
Ig Nobel for work based on Maharishi's teachings. The first was Ig Nobel
laureate John Hagelin, who won the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize "for his
experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18
percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."
Asked whether Tony Nader, Maharishi's latest leading medicine man, was
being considered for the 1999 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine, Marc Abrahams,
founder of the Ig Nobels and editor of AIR, would neither deny nor
confirm the rumor.
To learn more about what has been called "the world's most (un)coveted
awards," see my articles on the Ig Nobels and the Annals of Improbable
Research (AIR):
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/archive/jama/vol_279/no_13/jmn80038.htm
and check out AIR's Web site, http://www.improbable.com
--Andrew Skolnick http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
I speak only for myself, not for any other individual or organization.
Lawson English
> The first was Ig Nobel
>laureate John Hagelin, who won the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize "for his
>experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18
>percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."
And of course, John, one of the top theoretical Physicists in the world ,
insists that anyone who proclaims that the DC study was seriously flawed
should examine it more carefully.
If you like, make up a list of issues that you and others have with the
study (be specific and non-confrontational, please) and I'll forward it to
John's Center for rebuttal on these newsgroups. It might be interesting to
see what, if anything, he has to say in response, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Want Apple to license Cyberdog for third-party development? Go to:
<http://www.pcsincnet.com/petition.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Mullquist
>
>Dateline: Boston, Oct. 8, 1998 -- The 1998 Ig Nobel Ceremony to
>recognize scientists and others whose achievements "either cannot or
>should not be reproduced" was a grand affair. Tonight, at Harvard
>University's Sanders Theater, ten truly disserving men and women
>received Ig Nobel prizes in honor of their ditzy if not dubious
>achievements. Among the most disserving of these recipients was Dr.
>Deepak Chopra, onetime "Lord of Immortality" for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
>founder of Transcendental Meditation and the source of Total Knowledge.
>
Guess who's gonna get the Porr Nobel!
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@nasw.org> said:
>
> > The first was Ig Nobel
> >laureate John Hagelin, who won the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize "for his
> >experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18
> >percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."
>
> And of course, John, one of the top theoretical Physicists in the world ,
> insists that anyone who proclaims that the DC study was seriously flawed
> should examine it more carefully.
>
> If you like, make up a list of issues that you and others have with the
> study (be specific and non-confrontational, please) and I'll forward it to
> John's Center for rebuttal on these newsgroups. It might be interesting to
> see what, if anything, he has to say in response, no?
Lawson, don't get me wrong. I believe John Hagelin truly deserved an Ig
Nobel Prize.
--Andrew Skolnick http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/photography/
Lawson English
>> If you like, make up a list of issues that you and others have with the
>> study (be specific and non-confrontational, please) and I'll forward it
to
>> John's Center for rebuttal on these newsgroups. It might be interesting
to
>> see what, if anything, he has to say in response, no?
>
>Lawson, don't get me wrong. I believe John Hagelin truly deserved an Ig
>Nobel Prize.
In other words, you enjoy taking cheap shots but don't have any actual
criticisms of substance to make about the study that won John the Ig Nobel
Prize...
Betcha the guys that awarded the prize don't have any substantial
criticisms, either...
("but SOME categories of crimes went up during that period and those are
the ones that WE consider the ONLY important categories and therefore,
we're going to ignore any and all statistical analysis of the data and
merely assert that John's claim is wrong because we don't want to believe
that he could be right and will mock him or anyone else who threatens our
beliefs...")
Sheesh.
Judy Stein
> Dateline: Boston, Oct. 8, 1998 -- The 1998 Ig Nobel Ceremony to
> recognize scientists and others whose achievements "either cannot or
> should not be reproduced" was a grand affair. Tonight, at Harvard
> University's Sanders Theater, ten truly disserving men and women
> received Ig Nobel prizes in honor of their ditzy if not dubious
> achievements. Among the most disserving of these recipients was Dr.
(One wonders if "disserving" was intended as wordplay, or whether
this is just one more of Andrew's characteristic typos.)
> Deepak Chopra, onetime "Lord of Immortality" for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
> founder of Transcendental Meditation and the source of Total Knowledge.
For the record, MMY isn't himself the source of "Total
Knowledge." Rather, the techniques he teaches are said to give
access to it for anyone who practices them. (Incidentally, I
don't recall ever having seen the phrase "Total Knowledge" used
in the TM context; it may be that Andrew has invented it for the
occasion, as he does so many things.)
<snip>
> Although Deepak no longer sits at the side of the Maharishi, the Yogi
> nevertheless should be proud. Deepak is now the second person to win an
> Ig Nobel for work based on Maharishi's teachings.
It should be noted that while it's correct to say Dr. Chopra's
work is, or at least was, "based on Maharishi's teachings,"
Chopra's "unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness" is his
own. Moreover, it does not pretend to be scientific.
The first was Ig Nobel
> laureate John Hagelin, who won the 1994 Ig Nobel Peace Prize "for his
> experimental conclusion that 4,000 trained meditators caused an 18
> percent decrease in violent crime in Washington, D.C."
On the other hand, it should also be noted that Hagelin's
"experimental conclusion" was in fact based on serious
statistical research.
> Asked whether Tony Nader, Maharishi's latest leading medicine man, was
> being considered for the 1999 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine, Marc Abrahams,
Nader is not, in fact, Maharishi's "medicine man."
> To learn more about what has been called "the world's most (un)coveted
> awards," see my articles on the Ig Nobels and the Annals of Improbable
> Research (AIR):
Actually, if you check out the link to the AIR site
(http://www.improbable.com), you'll find that what's behind the
Ig Nobels isn't quite as Andrew chooses to portray it here. The
awards are not intended as slaps in the face to the recipients.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
"Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
[Andrew wrote:]
> >Lawson, don't get me wrong. I believe John Hagelin truly deserved an Ig
> >Nobel Prize.
>
> In other words, you enjoy taking cheap shots but don't have any actual
> criticisms of substance to make about the study that won John the Ig Nobel
> Prize...
>
> Betcha the guys that awarded the prize don't have any substantial
> criticisms, either...
>
> ("but SOME categories of crimes went up during that period and those are
> the ones that WE consider the ONLY important categories and therefore,
> we're going to ignore any and all statistical analysis of the data and
> merely assert that John's claim is wrong because we don't want to believe
> that he could be right and will mock him or anyone else who threatens our
> beliefs...")
Critics rarely even know *that* much about the results.
Sometimes they know the murder rate went up slightly. But they
don't know that the other categories--assault, robbery, and
rape--went down very substantially during the experiment. That
fact is never publicized by the anti-TMers like Andrew.
However, it should be emphasized, as I noted in another post,
that the Ig Nobel awards are for fun, not for criticism or
mockery, contrary to what Andrew would have you believe. On the
face of it, it *does* sound absurd that meditation could lower
the crime rate.
But the Ig Nobel sponsors point out that many things which at one
time sounded absurd have turned out to be of great importance.
Judy Stein
> The Ig Nobel Board of Governors chose Deepak for the 1998 Ig Nobel Prize
> in Physics. I think the board made a most wise choice. Rumor has it
> that he's been in the running for at least 4 years (at least, that's how
> "unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life,
I think it would be fun at this time to revisit one in particular
of the many parts of Andrew's JAMA article on TM that don't,
shall we say, accurately reflect the facts.
He writes:
"Some of those who have been favorably impressed by books and
presentations on Maharishi Ayur-Veda say they are intrigued by
the apparent connection between the discoveries of quantum
physics and the mysticism behind the healing system."
In fact, many, many people, including many entirely legitimate
and highly reputable scientists, are intrigued by the possible
connections between quantum mechanics and "mysticism" generally.
This is by no means peculiar to those who are impressed by
Maharishi Ayur-Veda (as Andrew knows but fails to inform the
reader).
(Note also that Andrew does *not* say these people's intrigue
about QM-mysticism connections comes from Chopra's books or,
indeed, from TM or MA-V material. In fact, some people who are
familiar with quantum mechanics who encounter presentations
dealing with "mystical" ideas are struck by the apparent
parallels even when none have been suggested.)
"In his 1990 book `Perfect Health: The Complete Mind/Body Guide,'
Chopra claims that the practices of TM and Maharishi Ayur-Veda
are supported by quantum physics..."
Actually Chopra makes no such claim. He points to some
interesting potential parallels and *speculates* as to whether
there might be a correspondence between MA-V principles and those
of quantum mechanics. Nowhere does he claim MA-V principles must
be valid on the grounds that they are supported by quantum
mechanics.
"...and refers readers who want `more insights into these ideas'
to `The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of
Nature'...by the eminent physicist Heinz R. Pagels, PhD."
Andrew goes on to cite at some length Pagels' distaste for the
drawing of parallels between physics and "mysticism," implying
that Chopra was being deceptive when he referred readers to
Pagels for "more insights into" Chopra's ideas.
However, this implication is deliberately deceptive on Andrew's
part.
First, he misquotes Chopra's book. Chopra's actual words are,
"The following is a selected bibliography that offers insights
into some of the ideas expressed in this book."
Andrew's misquote was designed to lead readers to believe Chopra
has specifically cited Pagels as support for Chopra's ideas. But
this is not the case. What I quoted, in fact, is a note at the
beginning of a short list of recommended reading and refers to
all the items on the list, but only to *some* of the ideas in the
book. (As it happens, many of the ideas in the book are not even
Chopra's; he cites many different sources and views.)
In the text, Chopra briefly explains a number of quantum
mechanical principles. With reference to the Pagels item on the
reading list, the note is suggesting that readers who want to
know more about these principles will find an excellent
introduction to them in "The Cosmic Code," a classic and very
rigorous discussion of physics principles for the general reader.
Nowhere does Chopra suggest or hint or imply that Pagels
sanctions Chopra's speculations, contrary to Andrew's
deliberately false innuendo.
The other items on the reading list consist of the following:
- Three of Chopra's own books
- A book by Michio Kaku, a respected physicist, called "Beyond
Einstein"
- Two books on Ayurveda (not Maharishi Ayur-Veda) by non-TMers
- Five TM publications
- A book edited by Zen practitioner Ken Wilber called "Quantum
Questions: The Mystical Writings of the World's Great
Physicists." Wilber's introduction to these pieces explicitly
disavows the relevance of any parallels between quantum physics
and mysticism, as do the pieces in question.
Obviously Chopra's note at the beginning of the reading list
means just what it says, not what Andrew has twisted it to mean
(by misquoting it, taking it out of context, and presenting
Pagels' position as if it contradicted Chopra's citation of
Pagels).
Had Chopra wanted to claim support for his own ideas, he could
have cited many dozens of current books and articles, many by
reputable scientists, that would have done precisely this. The
fact that he cited Pagels instead, in fact, demonstrates that he
was more interested in referring the reader to an unimpeachable
source of accurate information on quantum mechanics, even if that
source disagreed with his own ideas.
Ironically, many of the writers who speculate on the relationship
between physics principles and consciousness, which speculations
Pagels so detested, *do* cite Pagels in support of their ideas.
Andrew then writes:
"In [Cosmic Code], however, [Pagels] denounced as `nonsense'
attempts to tie quantum physics to Eastern mysticism. He wrote,
`Individuals who make such claims have substituted a
wish-fulfilling fantasy for understanding.'"
Readers might think these two quoted bits occur in the same
context; they don't, they're taken from different parts of the
book. They also might think, from how Andrew has written this
paragraph, that Pagels was broadly denouncing "attempts to tie
quantum physics to Eastern mysticism." He wasn't. Andrew has
even taken *Pagels* out of context. Certainly Pagels *did*
oppose such attempts, but the two phrases in quotes refer to much
more specific ideas--ideas which, moreover, are not mentioned at
all in Chopra's book.(*)
Andrew has correctly characterized Pagels' position, but he's
fudged his evidence in his eagerness to "get" Chopra.
(And Pagels, Andrew claims, was a friend of his. If he'll play
fast and loose with what a friend has written to make a point,
imagine what he'll do with someone he doesn't like. Wonder what
Pagels would have thought of Andrew misusing his words to falsely
accuse someone else of deception? No matter how repelled Pagels
would have been by Chopra's ideas, I suspect he had more
integrity than to allow Chopra to be dishonestly attacked and
would have been apoplectic to find a *friend* had done so by
misrepresenting Pagel's own words.)
Finally, Andrew quotes an affidavit Pagels provided on behalf of
someone who was suing the TM movement, which says, in part,
"There is no known connection between meditation states and
states of matter in physics."
First of all, this affidavit was written several years before
Chopra's book was published (as was "Cosmic Code"), although
Andrew doesn't tell the reader this, allowing the reader to
assume Pagels was specifically referring to Chopra's ideas.
Second, those familiar with TM who read the affidavit in full
will quickly recognize that Pagels had neglected to learn what TM
*does* say with regard to quantum mechanics. The connection he
denies in the quote above, for instance, is not claimed by TM.
Pagels makes many other statements of his personal opinions as if
they were established fact when, indeed, there are many reputable
physicists who strongly disagree with him.
Andrew knows this as well. Yet he cites Pagels as if he were the
last word on physics and Eastern philosophies of consciousness.
But this is a minor dishonesty, compared to Andrew's implied
accusation against Chopra, which he has manufactured out of thin
air and presented to the readers of the most prestigious medical
journal in the world. (Andrew, by the way, some time back
confirmed on the newsgroup that deception by Chopra in this
instance is precisely what he meant to imply. I didn't read that
into what he wrote.)
The premise that a respected (although conservative) physicist
would have been disgusted by Chopra's ideas is incontestable. If
Andrew had simply made that point, he'd be on firm ground.
But Andrew wasn't content with mere disagreement. He had to
manufacture deliberate deception on Chopra's part, and since
there was no such deception, Andrew had to engage in his own.
And now it's come back to bite him on the butt, as have so many
others of his countless disingenuities.
------------
(*) The sentence "Individuals who make such claims have
substituted a wish-fulfilling fantasy for understanding" refers
specifically to the claims that Bell's inequality theorem proves
that "telepathy is verified" and "all parts of the universe are
instantaneously interconnected," and that "this implies
communication faster than the speed of light."
The word "nonsense" is taken from an entirely different part of
the book and is used by Pagels to characterize a particularly
muddle-headed distortion of a position taken by Einstein; this
distortion was invented by Pagels for the occasion so he could
make a specific point in response. The "nonsense" in question
has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Chopra had written
about (nor does it even have anything to do with Bell's
inequalities).
Mr. Foot Grenade
dense as Carl Sagan used to be when he drifted into nonscientific areas.
Keep up the good work.
Andrew A. Skolnick
<snipt>
> For the record, MMY isn't himself the source of "Total
> Knowledge." Rather, the techniques he teaches are said to give
> access to it for anyone who practices them. (Incidentally, I
> don't recall ever having seen the phrase "Total Knowledge" used
> in the TM context; it may be that Andrew has invented it for the
> occasion, as he does so many things.)
Judy will lie about anything to disparage her critics, even something as
silly as this. She's seen TM's Maharishi Open University web pages,
which claims to be "Offering Total Knowledge for Everyone"
(http://www.mou.org/), so she knows what she wrote is not true.
<snipt>
> > To learn more about what has been called "the world's most (un)coveted
> > awards," see my articles on the Ig Nobels and the Annals of Improbable
> > Research (AIR):
Judy snipped the URL to these articles on the Ig Nobels:
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/archive/jama/vol_279/no_13/jmn80038.htm
> Actually, if you check out the link to the AIR site
> (http://www.improbable.com), you'll find that what's behind the
> Ig Nobels isn't quite as Andrew chooses to portray it here. The
> awards are not intended as slaps in the face to the recipients.
Judy is such an inveterate liar, I imagine she adds at least 10 minutes
to the time when asked just to keep in practice. As someone who has
written about the Ig Nobels and has nominated two Ig Nobel laureates, I
can say with good justification that Judy doesn't know what the hell
she's talking about -- as in often the case.
Dan
Dan
Judy Stein
> Hot damn, Judy - you've kicked Andy's silly ass again. He's about as
> dense as Carl Sagan used to be when he drifted into nonscientific areas.
With one major difference. Carl Sagan didn't habitually tell
lies.
Judy Stein
into my resume? You remember, you promised to show everyone that
it was filled with lies. I even emailed you a list of contact
people for the resume items to make the arduous task of checking
them out easier for you. It's been several months now. When can
we expect to see your results?
In article <362409...@nasw.org>, you wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote:
> <snipt>
> > For the record, MMY isn't himself the source of "Total
> > Knowledge." Rather, the techniques he teaches are said to give
> > access to it for anyone who practices them. (Incidentally, I
> > don't recall ever having seen the phrase "Total Knowledge" used
> > in the TM context; it may be that Andrew has invented it for the
> > occasion, as he does so many things.)
>
> Judy will lie about anything to disparage her critics, even something as
> silly as this. She's seen TM's Maharishi Open University web pages,
> which claims to be "Offering Total Knowledge for Everyone"
> (http://www.mou.org/), so she knows what she wrote is not true.
Well, no, actually I've never visited those Web pages. So it
appears to be Andrew--once again--who is lying, doesn't it?
(And even if I *had* seen them, on what basis could Andrew assert
that I really did recall the "Total Knowledge" phrase?)
<snip>
> > Actually, if you check out the link to the AIR site
> > (http://www.improbable.com), you'll find that what's behind the
> > Ig Nobels isn't quite as Andrew chooses to portray it here. The
> > awards are not intended as slaps in the face to the recipients.
>
> Judy is such an inveterate liar, I imagine she adds at least 10 minutes
> to the time when asked just to keep in practice. As someone who has
> written about the Ig Nobels and has nominated two Ig Nobel laureates, I
> can say with good justification that Judy doesn't know what the hell
> she's talking about -- as in often the case.
Notice that Andrew doesn't offer any challenges to anything I
said; he cannot, so he substitutes his usual lying bluster.
(Notice also that if I really didn't know what I was talking
about, I would not, of course, be lying. When Andrew is caught
in one of his many misrepresentations, he tends to get a little
mixed up.)
In his previous post Andrew tried to lay responsibility for
Chopra's ideas on quantum mechanics at Maharishi's feet. You'll
notice he snipped that part, and my response, pointing out that
Chopra's quantum mechanical speculations are his own, and that,
moreover, he has never presented them as science. Likewise he
snipped the part where I pointed out that Hagelin's conclusions
about the effect of meditation on crime in DC were the product of
a statistical study (which was overseen and approved by a number
of independent experts).
Let me say it another way: If you check out the link to the AIR
site (http://www.improbable.com), you'll find that what's behind
the Ig Nobels isn't quite as Andrew chose to portray it here.
The awards are not intended as slaps in the face to the
recipients.
That Andrew has been closely associated with the Ig Nobels and
knows what they're really about confirms how deliberately
misrepresentational his post to alt.m.t was. Indeed, his own
article in JAMA on the Ig Nobels gives a clearer sense of their
purpose (he didn't dare misrepresent it in JAMA, since many of
his readers would be familiar with the awards).
So let's see who's *really* lying here.
From an article in "Wired" magazine, 10/10/97, "A Gala Night for
Weird Science" by Scott Kirsner (accessible from the AIR site):
The goal of the Igs is to make science more accessible, according to
Eric Schulman, a researcher at the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, who delivered a two-minute oral history of the universe
at the event. "It's a great time, because it totally contradicts the
notion that scientists are stuffy people," Schulman said. "And it
shows that if you make science humorous, you can get the average
person interested in understanding it."
"The initial idea [for the Igs] was to have a goofy awards
ceremony," says [founder and emcee Marc] Abrahams, who has hosted
the event since 1991, its first year. "We wanted to get
everything we could think of that was dignified and have it
appear in some backward, upside-down, or twisted fashion."...
"If there is a serious part to it," muses Abrahams, "it's too see if
we can seduce more people to get interested in science - people who
think it's scary, or impossible to understand, or just plain boring."
And from Andrew's very own JAMA article:
Abrahams stresses that the Ig Nobel awards are presented in
good-natured fun and are never meant to ridicule anyone. Well, hardly
ever. The awards are "an effective way to get people interested in
science, which they often think is scary or yucky," he said. "It's an
underhanded way of seducing people into thinking about science.
Although some awards may sound critical, they usually just quote,
without comment, the research in question. Scientists can nominate
themselves for the coveted awards. They can also nominate their
enemies."
According to Abrahams, science that seems absurd can have considerable
merit. He cites the research of the Norwegian physicians who won the
1996 Ig Nobel in biology for their study of how garlic, ale, and sour
cream affect the appetite of leeches. "This research may sound
sophomoric, but there's purpose behind it, since leeches are again
being used in medicine. Suppose you're doing microsurgery to reattach
a finger; what do you do if your leech is not hungry? The conventional
wisdom from 150 years ago-when doctors used lots of leeches-was that
garlic, ale, or sour cream stimulates the creatures' appetite. Barheim
and Sandvik set out to advance the cause of medicine by testing that
wisdom. They discovered that beer makes leeches lazy and
undisciplined, much the way it affects us, and, while garlic attracts
the little bloodsuckers, it also kills them. So much for traditional
medical wisdom."
"Many scientific discoveries originally appeared as irrelevant as the
leech study may today," Abrahams said. "One hundred plus years ago,
doctors were hooted out of medicine for saying you should wash your
hands before surgery. Today, in many hospitals it's not unusual to
find several doctors who wash their hands before surgery. Just because
something is funny does not mean it's bad. But it doesn't mean it's
not bad, either."...
The awards serve to remind scientists not to cling too closely to any
sacred cows. "To do so risks being mooed if not gored at the next Ig
Nobel prize ceremony," Abrahams said.
I think it's quite safe to say that Andrew has read his own
article, and therefore that he knows what he said in the post I'm
responding to is not true; he also knows he misrepresented the Ig
Nobels in his earlier post, just as I said.
*Andrew* may choose to consider anyone who gets an Ig Nobel award
to have been slapped in the face thereby, but he knows (as
demonstrated by the quote from his own article) that this isn't
what the folks who give the Ig Nobels intend. Indeed, a good
portion of Andrew's article is devoted to reporting the
objections of a prominent British scientist to the Ig Nobel
awards because the scientist considered them insulting, and
Abrahams's strenuous denials that this was their intent.
Many of the awards are given for projects that have a perfectly
legitimate purpose but just *sound* funny. For example (from the
AIR Web site):
BIOLOGY
Peter Fong of Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, for
contributing to the happiness of clams by giving them Prozac.
["Induction and Potentiation of Parturition in Fingernail Clams
(Sphaerium striatinum) by Selective Serotonin Re- Uptake
Inhibitors (SSRIs)," Peter F. Fong, Peter T. Huminski, and
Lynette M. D'urso, "Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 280,
1998, pp. 260-64.]
And:
MEDICINE
To Patient Y and to his doctors, Caroline Mills, Meirion
Llewelyn, David Kelly, and Peter Holt, of Royal Gwent Hospital,
in Newport, Wales, for the cautionary medical report, "A Man
Who Pricked His Finger and Smelled Putrid for 5 Years."
REFERENCE: The paper was published in "The Lancet," vol. 348,
November 9, 1996, p. 1282.
Lawson English
Is that
"Hoist *by* your own petard?"
or
"Hoist *with* your own petard?"
Either way, you're airborne.
Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> said:
Andrew Skolnick said:
><snip>
>> > Actually, if you check out the link to the AIR site
>> > (http://www.improbable.com), you'll find that what's behind the
>> > Ig Nobels isn't quite as Andrew chooses to portray it here. The
>> > awards are not intended as slaps in the face to the recipients.
>>
>> Judy is such an inveterate liar, I imagine she adds at least 10 minutes
>> to the time when asked just to keep in practice. As someone who has
>> written about the Ig Nobels and has nominated two Ig Nobel laureates, I
>> can say with good justification that Judy doesn't know what the hell
>> she's talking about -- as in often the case.
[snipt]
>That Andrew has been closely associated with the Ig Nobels and
>knows what they're really about confirms how deliberately
>misrepresentational his post to alt.m.t was. Indeed, his own
>article in JAMA on the Ig Nobels gives a clearer sense of their
>purpose (he didn't dare misrepresent it in JAMA, since many of
>his readers would be familiar with the awards).
>
>So let's see who's *really* lying here.
>
>From an article in "Wired" magazine, 10/10/97, "A Gala Night for
>Weird Science" by Scott Kirsner (accessible from the AIR site):
>
[snipt]
> "The initial idea [for the Igs] was to have a goofy awards
> ceremony," says [founder and emcee Marc] Abrahams, who has hosted
> the event since 1991, its first year. "We wanted to get
> everything we could think of that was dignified and have it
> appear in some backward, upside-down, or twisted fashion."...
>
> "If there is a serious part to it," muses Abrahams, "it's too see if
> we can seduce more people to get interested in science - people who
> think it's scary, or impossible to understand, or just plain boring."
>
>And from Andrew's very own JAMA article:
>
> Abrahams stresses that the Ig Nobel awards are presented in
> good-natured fun and are never meant to ridicule anyone. Well, hardly
> ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calthos
>
> Great, Andrew's back to tell us how stupid we are.
>
> Dan
Well, Dan, it's a lousy job, but somebody's gotta do it.
George DeForest
>> for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of Transcendental
>>
> Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> For the record, MMY isn't himself the source
> of "Total Knowledge." Rather, the techniques
> he teaches are said to give access to it
> for anyone who practices them.
> (Incidentally, I don't recall ever having seen
> the phrase "Total Knowledge" used in the TM context;
> it may be that Andrew has invented it for the
> occasion, as he does so many things.)
In this case, Judy, I think you missed my post of Oct 8
which Andrew may be referring to. It was the text from
their website, of an ad the movement is running for MOU,
(the new satellite presentations by MMY live). The ad is
planned for newspapers globally. For the full ad,
see <http://www.mou.org/ad/ad1.html>
.
"Maharishi Open University will teach the students
the Total Knowledge of Natural Law..."
"The courses on Total Knowledge will be taught by Maharishi..."
"...education for everyone's inner Self - Atma -
the ocean of consciousness, which is infinite Bliss,
Total Knowledge and infinite organising power."
"The President of the University, Professor Tony Nader
has received his weight in gold for his scientific discovery
that Total Knowledge--the total administering intelligence
of the universe--is hidden in the human brain physiology."
"...will fully awaken consciousness, giving students
the experience of the Unified Field of Natural Law -
the field of Total Knowledge."
"Unique Results of Maharishi Open University's
Total Knowledge-Based Approach..."
.
One could say, its the latest buzz-word.
.
Totally Yours,
George DeForest
gd...@peakaccess.net
Lawson English
And this is the function of what?
A "skeptic?"
A person who has decided that they know best for other people?
What do you call someone who has decided that they should go around telling
people that they are stupid?
What do you call someone who approves of such a person?
Lawson English
>"The President of the University, Professor Tony Nader
>has received his weight in gold for his scientific discovery
>that Total Knowledge--the total administering intelligence
>of the universe--is hidden in the human brain physiology."
Lurkers should note that this was pretty much a publicity stunt/joke. What
Dr. Nader received was his weight in gold in research grants, or so I have
been told.
Avital Pilpel
Dan wrote in message <3624a7c1...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
>Great, Andrew's back to tell us how stupid we are.
>
>Dan
The truth DOES hurt, doesn't it?
Judy Stein
jeremy@please don't spam me .wavefront .com wrote:
> In sci.skeptic Mr. Foot Grenade <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> : Hot damn, Judy - you've kicked Andy's silly ass again. He's about as
> : dense as Carl Sagan used to be when he drifted into nonscientific areas.
> : Keep up the good work.
>
> I do not believe I have heard Mr. Sagan referred to as 'dense'
> before...
He could be extremely dense when he drifted into nonscientific
areas. Awhile back I posted excerpts from a review of his last
book that made this very point, with examples from the book.
Mr. Foot Grenade
showed the limits of Dr Sagan's knowledge. It amazes me that so many
skeptics who disavow cults and gurus treat Sagan, Asimov, Gardner and
others as Mahamaha Shree-Ji Sciencegod Buddhas. Sagan's incredible
subjectivity combined with his second-hand "research", qualified him as
a bit of a - now what _are_ those skeptical terms; oh, yes - charlatan,
flim-flam man, con artist, etc. Those untrained in critical thinking
will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
Strange that Sagan's foisting of critical thinking against
"pseudoscience and New Age supersition" is actually a double-edged
sword: critical thinking is useful to, and has been well employed by,
paranormal proponents as well as "skeptics". What Sagan and his
disciples need is a taste of their own medicine. People who read Sagan
critically can prescribe the dosage.
Ralph Page
I would still like to hear some specific, concrete examples
of Sagan's spurious logic with regard to paranormal, etc.
If you can't come up with any yourself, maybe you could cite
the source Judy brought up. Commenting on Sagan's
'misinformation' and 'spurious logic' without any sort of
example or analysis makes the statement look more like a
vague opinion.
--
-Ralph Page
"Just because a bunch of atheists are better writers
than the guys who wrote the bible doesn't necessarily
make them right!" - Owen Meany
B. Mullquist
>
>Yes, Judy, I remember your fine posts from that very book review which
>showed the limits of Dr Sagan's knowledge. It amazes me that so many
>skeptics who disavow cults and gurus treat Sagan, Asimov, Gardner and
<snipped>
Phantastic rhythm in Mr. Foot's text!
ictiobus
>
> Mr. Foot Grenade wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, Judy, I remember your fine posts from that very book review which
> > showed the limits of Dr Sagan's knowledge. It amazes me that so many
> > skeptics who disavow cults and gurus treat Sagan, Asimov, Gardner and
> > subjectivity combined with his second-hand "research", qualified him as
> > a bit of a - now what _are_ those skeptical terms; oh, yes - charlatan,
> > flim-flam man, con artist, etc. Those untrained in critical thinking
> > will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
> > Strange that Sagan's foisting of critical thinking against
> > "pseudoscience and New Age supersition" is actually a double-edged
> > sword: critical thinking is useful to, and has been well employed by,
> > paranormal proponents as well as "skeptics". What Sagan and his
> > disciples need is a taste of their own medicine. People who read Sagan
> > critically can prescribe the dosage.
>
> I would still like to hear some specific, concrete examples
> of Sagan's spurious logic with regard to paranormal, etc.
> If you can't come up with any yourself, maybe you could cite
> the source Judy brought up. Commenting on Sagan's
> 'misinformation' and 'spurious logic' without any sort of
> example or analysis makes the statement look more like a
> vague opinion.
>
> --
> -Ralph Page
>
Yeah, I've been lurking here a while and I get this crap too. I agree
with Ralph. Let's get it straight. Do you have any specific examples of
how Sagan, Randi, and others have used spurious, non-standard, logic to
evaluate the psychic stuff out there. None of this vague
genearlization. Give us specifics and also indicate where the errors
are and how you would do it differently.
Ictiobus
Avital Pilpel
John A. Stanley wrote in message ...
>And, I'll bet if I were to follow-up your snotty anti-TM comment with
>a snotty anti-Semitic comment you'd throw a hissy fit.
Are you comparing making fun the stupidities of TM to religious persecution?
Avital Pilpel
Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <3626A380...@proaxis.com>...
> Those untrained in critical thinking
>will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
Or to silly cults like TM who claim people can fly.
The difference, of course, that Sagan and many others exposed MANY specific
examples of the spurious logic and misinformation on part of the TMers,
while the TMers who rant about Sagan's "spurious logic" cannot give one
example of it, except by redefining "spurious logic" to mean "any argument
that does not agree TM works".
Avital Pilpel
Judy Stein
ictiobus <icti...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, I've been lurking here a while and I get this crap too. I agree
> with Ralph. Let's get it straight. Do you have any specific examples of
> how Sagan, Randi, and others have used spurious, non-standard, logic to
> evaluate the psychic stuff out there. None of this vague
> genearlization. Give us specifics and also indicate where the errors
> are and how you would do it differently.
Or you'll huff and puff and...
As I pointed out to Ralph, we discussed Sagan here at some length
and in some detail back in June. And I pointed out some of the
problems with Randi and with debunking attempts generally quite
recently, a month or so ago, in an exchange with a guy named Brad
from sci.skeptic. Look it all up on Deja News.
It's interesting that you simply arrogantly *assume* we're just
flapping our gums. Maybe it would behoove you to do a little
homework in the newsgroup archives first (as the regulars on
sci.skeptic would no doubt require of a newbie there before the
newbie was permitted to demand an accounting of opinions
expressed by skeptics on topics which had been previously
extensively discussed).
Be warned: skeptopaths are eaten for breakfast here on
alt.meditation.transcendental.
Judy Stein
"Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> George DeForest <gd...@peakaccess.net> said:
>
> >"The President of the University, Professor Tony Nader
> >has received his weight in gold for his scientific discovery
> >that Total Knowledge--the total administering intelligence
> >of the universe--is hidden in the human brain physiology."
>
> Lurkers should note that this was pretty much a publicity stunt/joke. What
> Dr. Nader received was his weight in gold in research grants, or so I have
> been told.
That's what the news release said explicitly that the gold was to
be used for.
Judy Stein
"George DeForest" <gd...@peakaccess.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > (Incidentally, I don't recall ever having seen
> > the phrase "Total Knowledge" used in the TM context;
> > it may be that Andrew has invented it for the
> > occasion, as he does so many things.)
>
> In this case, Judy, I think you missed my post of Oct 8
> which Andrew may be referring to. It was the text from
> their website, of an ad the movement is running for MOU,
I saw the post, but I didn't look at it very closely. As you
know, that sort of extreme hype turns me right off. I was more
interested in the mechanics of satellite reception of the
courses.
> One could say, its the latest buzz-word.
Indeed.
It's just that Andrew makes up so much of what he says about TM,
when you come across something you're not familiar with in the TM
context, the most reasonable assumption is that he made it up.
One of my favorites is Andrew's assertion that TMers "address
Maharishi as `His Holiness.'"
I'd bet a good deal of money that no TMer has ever addressed
Maharishi as "His Holiness."
"His Holiness, could you tell us more about..."
Right.
In formal contexts, MMY is *referred* to by his full title as
"His Holiness, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." And in some *very* formal
contexts, he may be addressed as "Your Holiness" (although I
can't recall ever having heard this). But in the vast, vast
majority of instances, he's both referred to and addressed as
"Maharishi."
Andrew, of course, wanted to give the impression that TMers
regard Maharishi as Catholics regard the Pope (his blooper in
using "address" rather than "refer to" nothwithstanding).
If Catholics routinely addressed and referred to John Paul as
"Pope," as if it were a nickname ("Pope, what do you think
about..." "Pope says that..."), maybe he'd have a point.
But, of course, they don't. And they *do* routinely refer to the
Pope as "His Holiness" (with and without his full title) and
address him as "Your Holiness."
Judy Stein
Ralph Page <RALPH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I would still like to hear some specific, concrete examples
> of Sagan's spurious logic with regard to paranormal, etc.
> If you can't come up with any yourself, maybe you could cite
> the source Judy brought up. Commenting on Sagan's
> 'misinformation' and 'spurious logic' without any sort of
> example or analysis makes the statement look more like a
> vague opinion.
Why don't you go look up the discussion that took place here
about Sagan back in June? Do a Deja News search for Sagan in
alt.meditation.transcendental. The thread started with a post
from Andrew Skolnick in June (or late May), quoting Sagan on TM
from "Demon-Haunted World." I pointed out a host of spurious
statements just in those couple of paragraphs, and the discussion
went on from there. My quote excerpting the book review should
be somewhere in those threads as well.
Your assumption that we are just indulging in "vague opinion" is
quite mistaken, if typical from a skeptopath. We've already
provided lots of examples and analysis, and I don't believe we're
obliged to go through them all again just because you happened to
miss them the first time around.
I'm rather surprised, however, that you weren't aware of of the
many *mainstream* criticisms of Sagan. It isn't just the folks
you would consider fuzzy-headed New Agers who recognized his
deficiencies.
He was unquestionably brilliant in a certain limited area, one of
the best of the science popularizers (at least when he didn't try
to apply science to what he himself didn't understand). But
possibly because of all the popular acclaim he received, he
acquired a certain hubris about the extent of what he was
qualified to comment on--a very human failing.
The problem was that he was so charismatic and charming and
appeared so authoritative and knowledgeable that many folks were
seduced into assuming everything he said was pure gold. And he
in turn bought into the public's perception of him.
Judy Stein
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <3626A380...@proaxis.com>...
>
> > Those untrained in critical thinking
> >will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
>
> Or to silly cults like TM who claim people can fly.
More like to silly skeptics who assume the reports of other
skeptics are accurate.
First, TM isn't a cult.
Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
individual will fly within a given time frame.
Moreover, as I just pointed out to Lou, the notion that those who
fully develop their potential will be able to do things science
considers impossible is hardly a "fringe" view, nor is it only
the view of fuzzy thinkers.
> The difference, of course, that Sagan and many others exposed
> MANY specific examples of the spurious logic and misinformation
> on part of the TMers, while the TMers who rant about Sagan's
> "spurious logic" cannot give one example of it, except by
> redefining "spurious logic" to mean "any argument that does not
> agree TM works".
Your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance (but not by
much).
The only remarks of Sagan I'm aware of concerning TM are those he
made in "Demon-Haunted World." They amounted to a few paragraphs
and most certainly "exposed" nothing except his own ignorance and
arrogance.
If you know of other public comments Sagan made about TM, I'd be
interested to learn where they can be found. There may well *be*
some, but I've never seen them. I would seriously doubt,
however, that they are any more valid than what he wrote for
"Demon-Haunted World."
What follows is a repeat of a post I made back in June containing
a close analysis giving specific examples of the spurious logic,
as well as the misinformation, in Sagan's paragraphs on TM from
"Demon-Haunted World."
First I'll reproduce his remarks in their entirety. (I was
tempted to reproduce them by themselves and ask the skeptics to
evaluate them, then post my own analysis to embarrass the
skeptics by showing their lack of critical thinking, but Avital's
comments above will prove to be so embarrassing I don't think I
need to go through that exercise.)
"Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience--by many
criteria, already a religion--is the Hindu doctrine of
Transcendental Meditation (TM). The soporific homilies of its
founder and spiritual leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, can be
seen on television. Seated in the yogi position, his white hair
here and there flecked with black, surrounded by garlands and
floral offerings, he has a *look*. One day while channel surfing
we came upon this visage. "You know who that is?" asked our
four-year-old son. `God.'
"The worldwide TM organization has an estimated valuation of $3
billion. For a fee they promise through meditation to be able to
walk you through walls, to make you invisible, to enable you to
fly. By thinking in unison they have, they say, diminished the
crime rate in Washington, D.C., and caused the collapse of the
Soviet Union, among other secular miracles. Not one smattering of
real evidence has been offered for any such claims. TM sells folk
medicine, runs trading companies, medical clinics and "research"
universities, and has unsuccessfully entered politics.
"In its oddly charismatic leader, its promise of community, and
he offer of magical powers in exchange for money and fervent
belief, it is typical of many pseudosciences marked for
sacerdotal export. As amusing as some of pseudoscience may seem,
as confident as we may be that we would never be so gullible as
to be swept up by such a doctrine, we know it's happening all
around us. Transcendental Meditation and Aum Shinrikyo seem to
have attracted a large number of accomplished people, some with
advanced degrees in physics or engineering. These are not
doctrines for nitwits. Something else is going on."
Boy, that really puts those TMers in their place, don't it,
Avital? Sagan just exposed the hell out of TM, didn't he? I
mean, how can we possibly hold our heads up in public? Just look
at all those specific examples of spurious logic and
misinformation on part of the TMers!
My analysis from June follows. I'll await your apology for the
comments you made above.
From: jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Heinz Pagels and Carl Sagan Agree on TM
Date: 21 Jun 1998 18:58:00 -0400
Message-ID: <rxFZrq2B...@panix.com>
References: <358C9F...@nospamnasw.org>
In article <358C9F...@nospamnasw.org>,
"Andrew A. Skolnick" <asko...@nospamnasw.org> wrote:
<exchange about Heinz Pagels deleted>
> And here is what Carl Sagan wrote in his New York Times Bestseller, *The
> Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark*:
OK, let's have a closer look at what Sagan wrote:
> "Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience--by many
> criteria, already a religion--is the Hindu doctrine of Transcendental
> Meditation (TM).
What criteria? And on what basis does he claim it is a *Hindu*
doctrine? Has he examined what TM teaches, examined what
Hinduism teaches, and compared the two? Has he considered TM's
response to the charge that it is Hindu doctrine? He doesn't
even report that TM maintains it is *not* Hindu doctrine.
The soporific homilies of its founder and spiritual
> leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
Weasel phrase, "soporific homilies." As if that were an
established fact rather than a matter of opinion. But he's
leading up to something, as we'll see.
> can be seen on television.
As it happens, MMY was "seen on television" for only a short
period on a cable channel in California (and perhaps a few other
places--Lawson?).
> Seated in the yogi position,
(That would be lotus position. There are countless "yogi
positions.")
his white hair here and there flecked with black,
> surrounded by garlands and floral offerings, he has a *look*.
Ah, a "look." Objective evidence of...what?
> One day while channel surfing we came upon this visage. "You know
> who that is?" asked our four-year-old son. "God."
Well, there you go. If Sagan's four-year-old son takes a gander
at MMY and thinks he's God, obviously MMY is engaged in some
really serious pseudoscience. <snort>
The worldwide TM organization has an
> estimated valuation of $3 billion.
And so...?
> For a fee they promise through meditation to be able to walk you
> through walls, to make you invisible, to enable you to fly.
Here Sagan has obviously relied on other accounts by skeptics,
which themselves were most likely based on TM-Ex materials. He
hasn't bothered to verify the skeptics' reports with
authoritative sources. He *assumes* the skeptics' reports are
themselves authoritative, an assumption not based on objective
evidence.
The walking-through-walls and invisibility siddhis haven't been
taught since the mid-'70s, first. Second, no such promises are
made by TM. In fact, you have to demonstrate in writing that you
understand you haven't been promised anything before you're
allowed to take the course.
> By thinking in unison
"Thinking in unison" is a highly inaccurate description of what
goes on in TM-Sidhis practice. Again, Sagan hasn't bothered to
check to see whether his *assumption* about what the TM-Sidhis
entail is correct. But it's part of what he's leading up to.
they have, they say,
> diminished the crime rate in Washington, D.C., and caused the collapse
> of the Soviet Union, among other secular miracles. Not one smattering of
> real evidence has been offered for any such claims.
Here Sagan cites one claim that has been documented (not proved)
via very elaborate statistical studies, some of which were
published in peer-reviewed journals (prior to the big 1993 DC
study, which has not been published, although it is available
for review), along with another claim that could never be
documented and which TM does not claim to have documented. By
citing the two together, he implies there is no more evidence for
the second than for the first, which is simply incorrect.
Nor does TM consider reduction of crime via TM/TM-Sidhis practice
to be "miraculous." That's another weasel word. It's one thing
to claim, "We do miracles!" and quite another to present a
detailed account of how the claimed results are supposedly
achieved based on scientific principles, along with supporting
statistical evidence. Whether one thinks the account makes
scientific sense or the statistics hold up is a different issue.
TM does not claim to work miracles; it claims to utilize natural
principles.
TM sells folk
> medicine, runs trading companies, medical clinics and "research"
> universities, and has unsuccessfully entered politics.
(Hm, I guess Sagan disagrees with Andrew here, since Andrew claims
what TM sells is not traditional Ayur-Veda "folk medicine" but
something TM invented itself just to make money.)
Note the weasel use of quotes around "research." MUM *is* a
research university. Even if one does not consider the hundreds
of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies on TM conducted at
MUM to be "real" research (again an assumption, not an
established fact), there is plenty of research on non-TM-related
topics that goes on at MUM and which likewise has been published
in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, MUM researchers routinely
get research grants from NIH and other respected scientific
institutions, for studying non-TM-related *and* TM-related
matters.
> In its oddly charismatic leader,
"Oddly"?
> its promise of community,
TM doesn't promise "community," but since "community" is a
standard promise of cults, Sagan thought he'd throw it in.
> and the offer of magical powers in exchange for money and
> fervent belief,
TM does not consider the siddhis "magical." Nor does belief play
any role in what *is* offered.
> it is typical of many pseudosciences marked for sacerdotal export
"Sacerdotal: of or relating to priests or a priesthood." Now TM
is supposedly exporting a priesthood. Where's the objective
evidence, Dr. Sagan?
As amusing as some of
> pseudoscience may seem, as confident as we may be that we would never be
> so gullible as to be swept up by such a doctrine,
Note that Sagan has not described any doctrine.
we know it's happening
> all around us. Transcendental Meditation and Aum Shinrikyo seem to have
> attracted a large number of accomplished people,
This is perhaps the most seriously biased and thoughtless comment
Sagan makes, to equate Aum Shinrikyo, with its deadly poison gas
attacks, and TM--with no qualification whatsoever, no indication
that there are any significant differences between the two.
> some with advanced degrees in physics or engineering. These are
> not doctrines for nitwits. Something else is going on."
And now we get back to the hints Sagan has been dropping
throughout the paragraph: the "soporific homilies," the
bewitching of Sagan's son, MMY's "odd" charisma, his "look,"
TMers "thinking in unison," the "promise of community."
Somebody, astonishingly, suggested here that Sagan was showing
his open-mindedness with his "Something else is going on" remark,
that he meant there *could* be something to TM, that maybe it
*wasn't* really pseudoscience.
In fact, what Sagan is suggesting is that there is something
sinister about TM--that all these accomplished and intelligent
people are victims of hypnotic mind control. That's the
"something else" he refers to. That's the assumption he makes
and wants the reader to make as well.
And *that* is based on the assumption that TM cannot possibly
have anything valid to say, even though Sagan obviously doesn't
know what TM says, except for what other skeptics who aren't any
better informed than he is have said TM says.
Note that Sagan offers *no* objective evidence we could go check
out for ourselves
[Added 10/16: Andrew Skolnick had claimed that Sagan said nothing
that was not backed up by objective evidence we could go check
out for ourselves.--JS]
that TM is a pseudoscience. Everything he
mentions is "evidence" only if one first assumes the conclusion,
i.e., that TM's claims cannot be valid. And a lot of what he
mentions as "evidence" is inaccurate as well.
Judy Stein
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
Are you equating snotty anti-Semitic comments with religious
persecution?
Or did you completely miss the point of John's remark?
And let's see, you appear to have credited yourself with making
fun of the stupidities of TM. Well, unless I've missed some of
the traffic, the "snotty anti-TM comment" John is referring to,
made in response to someone else's remark about Andrew telling
TMers how stupid they are, reads (in its entirety):
"The truth DOES hurt, doesn't it?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
> Hot damn, Judy - you've kicked Andy's silly ass again. He's about as
> dense as Carl Sagan used to be when he drifted into nonscientific areas.
With one major difference. Carl Sagan didn't habitually tell
lies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:38:08 -0700, in sci.skeptic, "Mr. Foot Grenade"
> <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, Judy, I remember your fine posts from that very book review which
> >showed the limits of Dr Sagan's knowledge. It amazes me that so many
> >skeptics who disavow cults and gurus treat Sagan, Asimov, Gardner and
> >others as Mahamaha Shree-Ji Sciencegod Buddhas. Sagan's incredible
<snip>
> Then you should have no trouble providing numerous examples supporting
> your claims about Sagan, Asimov, Gardner et al, right?
>
> Don't forget the cites.
See two posts from me today dealing with Sagan. Awhile back I
posted a lengthy analysis of a disastrously inaccurate article
Gardner had written for Skeptical Inquirer on Doug Henning and
TM. And back in June I provided evidence to support the claim
Foot Grenade makes above about the excessively reverential
attitude of Sagan's followers.
A month or so I had a long exchange with a guy named Brad from
sci.skeptic concerning Randi and debunking approaches generally.
All these should be available on Deja News.
I'll leave Asimov to Foot Grenade.
Judy Stein
nos...@buzz.off (Bob Casanova) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:40:19 -0500, in sci.skeptic, jsta...@gate.net
> (John A. Stanley) wrote:
>
> >In article <705p70$blt$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
> >"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>Dan wrote in message <3624a7c1...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
> >>>Great, Andrew's back to tell us how stupid we are.
> >>
> >>The truth DOES hurt, doesn't it?
> >
> >And, I'll bet if I were to follow-up your snotty anti-TM comment with
> >a snotty anti-Semitic comment you'd throw a hissy fit.
>
> Is TM now considered to be a subrace of H.sap?
Gosh, Bob missed the point as well.
(Perhaps you should have written "anti-Jewish" rather than
"anti-Semitic," John, for the benefit of the obsessively
literal.)
Mr. Foot Grenade
of debates that happened earlier in the group. It's also hilarious that
they want others to do their homework for them. They seem to *prefer*
second-hand reporting, rather than going to sources themselves and doing
their own research. It's not difficult: they can find a title by one of
the debated authors, read it *critically*, research the subjects the
book claims to debunk, and then skeptos will be prepared to communicate
meaningfully on the subject at hand. But instead, they sit around on
their lazy butts, *requiring* opponents to provide "evidence" - when all
the time, the evidence is available to all. Apparently they would
rather receive their information second-hand from "mystics", "TM'ers",
"New Age proponents", "UFO cultists", etc., than from first-hand
investigation. It's a trip to Suckerville to fall into the skepto trap
of "provide me with evidence while I lie around here taking a nap."
Nope, we have the evidence, but we got it by the work you skeptos are
too lazy to do, and we won't hand it to you on a silver platter. Get
your own platter and fill it with the fruits of your own labors. Then,
if your own research differs from ours - or even if it doesn't - there
will be a level debating field. Until then, you can go fly a kite.
Lawson English
>Yeah, I've been lurking here a while and I get this crap too. I agree
>with Ralph. Let's get it straight. Do you have any specific examples of
>how Sagan, Randi, and others have used spurious, non-standard, logic to
>evaluate the psychic stuff out there. None of this vague
>genearlization. Give us specifics and also indicate where the errors
>are and how you would do it differently.
OK, I can't speak for Sagan, but here's a little gem from Randi's
_Flim-Flam_:
In it, he mentions the TM organization's claim that the group meditation in
Iowa lowered the crime rate and then quotes an Iowan official saying that
the crime-rate had no gone down to prove them wrong.
I can't answer to which statistic is correct, but the fact is the TM
research on crime generally uses the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics figures
because these are presumeably uniformly evaluated from state to state.
The fact that the Iowa official says one thing while (I assume) the FBI
figures say another may only mean that the FBI defines categories of crime
differently than the state of Iowa does.
It says nothing about whether or not crime actually did go up, down or
sideways in Iowa during that time.
Here's the possibilities as I see them:
I'm wrong -the TM organization cited the Iowa statistics and not the FBI
ones.
I'm wrong -the TM organization DID cite the FBI statistics but they are
identical to the FBI ones and
either the TM organization lied or mis-read the FBI statistics.
The Iowa official lied.
The Iowa official was mistaken.
Randi lied about what the Iowa official said.
Randi was mistaken about what the officia said.
The FBI mis-read/printed the Iowa stats.
The FBI lied about the Iowa stats.
The FBI uses different criteria than Iowa to define crime in the Uniform
Crime Statistics report.
Any of the above could be the correct explanation about the discrepancy. As
you can see, there are explanations where no-one need to have lied, was
mistaken, or even misread/misheard the question/answer and we would still
have the TM organization reporting one thing while the Iowa official would
be reporting something else.
Randi never considered any of the above as far as I can tell. This is
traditional with professional skeptics: assume the worst and attack
whole-heartedly.
Ralph Page
>
> In article <3626B840...@prodigy.net>,
> Ralph Page <RALPH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I would still like to hear some specific, concrete examples
> > of Sagan's spurious logic with regard to paranormal, etc.
> > If you can't come up with any yourself, maybe you could cite
> > the source Judy brought up. Commenting on Sagan's
> > 'misinformation' and 'spurious logic' without any sort of
> > example or analysis makes the statement look more like a
> > vague opinion.
>
> Why don't you go look up the discussion that took place here
> about Sagan back in June? Do a Deja News search for Sagan in
> alt.meditation.transcendental. The thread started with a post
> from "Demon-Haunted World." I pointed out a host of spurious
> statements just in those couple of paragraphs, and the discussion
> went on from there. My quote excerpting the book review should
> be somewhere in those threads as well.
Thanks for the pointers. I have attempted to search
Dejanews in the past (looking for some of Pete Stapleton's
predictions and I found it was next to impossible when the
poster is as prolific as you or Pete. I deleted what seems
like hundred of posts between you and Andrew (I think it was
Andrew you went toe to toe with) not long ago and the
thought of wading through all that was none too appealing.
If Sagan's name was in the subject line of the thread, I
will have no trouble.
> Your assumption that we are just indulging in "vague opinion" is
> quite mistaken, if typical from a skeptopath. We've already
> provided lots of examples and analysis, and I don't believe we're
> obliged to go through them all again just because you happened to
> miss them the first time around.
I didn't say it was a vague opinion, as I am sure you
noticed. I just stated that broad, general statements give
that appearance. No, you are not obliged at all and I
appreciate that you responded. Foot Grenade didn't. And I
asked him twice.
I try to avoid making statements like Foot Grenade made,
even in this usenet forum where anything goes. It just
seems inappropriate to slam a third party without properly
backing it up. The fact that you or he may have discussed
it a couple of months ago is not that relevant. Just my
opinion of course.
> I'm rather surprised, however, that you weren't aware of of the
> many *mainstream* criticisms of Sagan. It isn't just the folks
> you would consider fuzzy-headed New Agers who recognized his
> deficiencies.
I guess I just missed them.
> He was unquestionably brilliant in a certain limited area, one of
> the best of the science popularizers (at least when he didn't try
> to apply science to what he himself didn't understand). But
> possibly because of all the popular acclaim he received, he
> acquired a certain hubris about the extent of what he was
> qualified to comment on--a very human failing.
>
> The problem was that he was so charismatic and charming and
> appeared so authoritative and knowledgeable that many folks were
> seduced into assuming everything he said was pure gold. And he
> in turn bought into the public's perception of him.
You're right there, he seemed like a really nice guy and, in
fact, everything I ever heard led me to believe that he was
pretty rational about the 'paranormal'.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
Lawson English
>
>John A. Stanley wrote in message ...
>
>>And, I'll bet if I were to follow-up your snotty anti-TM comment with
>>a snotty anti-Semitic comment you'd throw a hissy fit.
>
>
>Are you comparing making fun the stupidities of TM to religious
>persecution?
Calling someone stupid is hardly simply making fun of them.
When you can't make a distinction between beliefs/opinions, and the people
that hold them, there is really no difference between that attitude and
persecution except that you haven't started to pick up rocks yet.
Bob Casanova
<eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>Yes, Judy, I remember your fine posts from that very book review which
>showed the limits of Dr Sagan's knowledge. It amazes me that so many
>skeptics who disavow cults and gurus treat Sagan, Asimov, Gardner and
>others as Mahamaha Shree-Ji Sciencegod Buddhas. Sagan's incredible
>subjectivity combined with his second-hand "research", qualified him as
>a bit of a - now what _are_ those skeptical terms; oh, yes - charlatan,
>flim-flam man, con artist, etc. Those untrained in critical thinking
>will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
>Strange that Sagan's foisting of critical thinking against
>"pseudoscience and New Age supersition" is actually a double-edged
>sword: critical thinking is useful to, and has been well employed by,
>paranormal proponents as well as "skeptics". What Sagan and his
>disciples need is a taste of their own medicine. People who read Sagan
>critically can prescribe the dosage.
Then you should have no trouble providing numerous examples supporting
your claims about Sagan, Asimov, Gardner et al, right?
Don't forget the cites.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ pop3.clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Bob Casanova
(John A. Stanley) wrote:
>
>In article <705p70$blt$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
>"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Dan wrote in message <3624a7c1...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
>>
>>>Great, Andrew's back to tell us how stupid we are.
>>>
>>>Dan
>>
>>The truth DOES hurt, doesn't it?
>
>And, I'll bet if I were to follow-up your snotty anti-TM comment with
>a snotty anti-Semitic comment you'd throw a hissy fit.
Is TM now considered to be a subrace of H.sap?
(Note followups, if any)
Harold L
>taught since the mid-'70s, first.
Why were these teachings abandonned anyway?
I propose as with most cults, religions, and psuedoscience belief
institutions, the doctorines and teachings are often updated to
attract more followers. As society evolves and science advances,
fewer people accept such supernatural claims. If you want to stay in
business you must diversify.
The widespread cult industry that prevailed in the 70's appears to be
making a comeback in the 90's as "New Age". Except the new age claims
are much more vague. They promise intangible and therefore unprovable
benefits. There are fewer promises of physical miraculous results.
Intorudcing TM 2.0 with 90% less fat and no walking through (or into)
walls.
>Second, no such promises are made by TM. In fact, you have
>to demonstrate in writing that you understand you haven't been
>promised anything before you're allowed to take the course.
That's a good disclaimer. That way the students can't take you to
court when they realize the truth.
--HL
tm_ingj...@my-dejanews.com
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <3626A380...@proaxis.com>...
>
> >will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
>
>
Eint it fani that flais kan duu meni things piipl kan't.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lawson English
>>The walking-through-walls and invisibility siddhis haven't been
>>taught since the mid-'70s, first.
>
>Why were these teachings abandonned anyway?
The purpose of the TM-Sidhis course is to promote development of higher
states of consciousness. Presumeably, in the relatively short amount of
time that we can devote to each technique found in the Yoga Sutras of
Patanjali, some techniques are more beneficial for this purpose than
others. The period in the mid-70's was a time of experimentation on the
part of MMY. He was testing the effects of the various siddhis on people
and obviously decided that the siddhis-in-question weren't the best to use
for his purposes.
Brian Milnes
John A. Stanley wrote in message ...
>
>>>a snotty anti-Semitic comment you'd throw a hissy fit.
>>
>>
persecution?
>
>associated with Judaism is stupid (dump that Zionism crap and the
>barbaric mutilation of neonatal boys and you'd have removed pretty
>much all the stupidity from Judaism.)
What about Hasidic (sp.?) fundamentalism, John?
Brian
George Black
>Be warned: skeptopaths are eaten for breakfast here on
>alt.meditation.transcendental.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then with all haste haul your backside out of sci.skeptic
Tomorrow is only a day away.
George
Lawson English
Excuse, what does the charter for sci.skeptic say that it is for?
Back-patting of skeptics of skeptical stances, or the rational discussion
of non-mainstream beliefs and practices?
As it happens, I don't believe that skeptopaths are any more rational about
THEIR beliefs than any other True Believer so get YOUR backside out of
sci.skeptic if you feel that you were targetted by the term "skeptopath."
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <708b2k$jfm$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
> "Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Foot Grenade wrote in message <3626A380...@proaxis.com>...
> >
> > > Those untrained in critical thinking
> > >will fall easy victim to Sagan's spurious logic and misinformation.
> >
> > Or to silly cults like TM who claim people can fly.
>
> More like to silly skeptics who assume the reports of other
> skeptics are accurate.
>
> First, TM isn't a cult.
That's the stubborn opinion of Judy Stein, noted apologist for the TM
cult.
The opinion of most authorities on cults? Members of the TM Movement are
members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
> Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
> It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
> individual will fly within a given time frame.
Judy is a liar. The Maharishi and at least some of his followers have
gone on record to say that TMers have already levitated. She prefers
people forget Maharishi's appearance on the Merv Griffin Show in 1978,
when, in response to the Maharishi claiming that 40,000 students took
his Yogic flying course, Griffin asked how many had learned to levitate.
"Thousands!" the Maharishi declared.
> Moreover, as I just pointed out to Lou, the notion that those who
> fully develop their potential will be able to do things science
> considers impossible is hardly a "fringe" view, nor is it only
> the view of fuzzy thinkers.
"Develop their potential" is Judy-speak for "levitation, walking through
solid walls, becoming invisible, and developing the strength of an
elephant" -- all claims made by the TM Movement for its TM-Sidhi
technique.
--Andrew Skolnick http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
I speak only for myself, not for any other individual or organization.
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> >The walking-through-walls and invisibility siddhis haven't been
> >taught since the mid-'70s, first.
>
>
> institutions, the doctorines and teachings are often updated to
> attract more followers. As society evolves and science advances,
> fewer people accept such supernatural claims. If you want to stay in
> business you must diversify.
>
> The widespread cult industry that prevailed in the 70's appears to be
> making a comeback in the 90's as "New Age". Except the new age claims
> are much more vague. They promise intangible and therefore unprovable
> benefits. There are fewer promises of physical miraculous results.
>
> Intorudcing TM 2.0 with 90% less fat and no walking through (or into)
> walls.
>
> >to demonstrate in writing that you understand you haven't been
> >promised anything before you're allowed to take the course.
>
> court when they realize the truth.
>
> --HL
Precisely. The TM Movement was sued by students who were unhappy being
bamboozled.
Hell, cigarette companies have gotten away with murder by slapping some
silly warnings on their labels.
Unlike TM courses, disclaimers do give you the power of invisibility and
the strength of an elephant.
Lawson English
countless times and have been addressed countless times. Andrew knows our
answers and either doesn't accept them or doesn't care. Certainly, it
appears that he isn't interested in rational discussion of the issues, but
only in attempting to discredit an organization and people who have taken
classes via the organization.
THIS is being a skeptic?
Not in my book. The fact that so many skeptics keep silent when Andrew does
his little skeptopath song and dance on sci.skeptic certainly suggests that
sci.skeptic is populated primarily by religious fanatics.
Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@nasw.org> said:
>
>The opinion of most authorities on cults? Members of the TM Movement are
>members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
>
How many authorities on cults are there? Who says that they are
authorities? Why? And how many actually insist that members of the TM
Movement are members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi?
Numbers, please? Do they insist that EVERY practitioner of TM is a member
of the TM-cult? What about every practitioner of the TM-Sidhis?
BTW, while we are at it, just what constitutes a member of the TM Movement?
Am I such a member? Why? Is my son? Is his mom, who no longer practices the
technique? Is my best friend, who only practices the technique when he is
exhausted and can't sleep? Are the hundreds of participants in the
TM-hypertension study recently published in the journal _Hypertension_,
members of this cult? What about the 11,000 prison inmates in Senegal who
learned TM by order of the president of the country?
Please define your terms.
>> Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
>> It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
>> individual will fly within a given time frame.
>
>Judy is a liar. The Maharishi and at least some of his followers have
>gone on record to say that TMers have already levitated. She prefers
>people forget Maharishi's appearance on the Merv Griffin Show in 1978,
>when, in response to the Maharishi claiming that 40,000 students took
>his Yogic flying course, Griffin asked how many had learned to levitate.
>"Thousands!" the Maharishi declared.
*I* learned how to levitate the TM way, Andrew. So has EVERY person who
ever took the course. However, that doesn't mean that I or anyone else CAN
levitate. Having learned the technique that Patanjali claims will lead to
"passage through the skies" isnt' the same as actually accomplishing the
end-point of the technique (assuming, of course, that the end-point
exists).
Since the point of the technique, both as expoused by Patanjali AND
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is to become enlightened, rather than merely "pass
through the skies," this isn't some minor point, but the central theme of
the whole of Yoga as described in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. The entire
third chapter (out of 4) is devoted to the Siddhis techniques, of which
Yogic Flying is one. Invisibility is another. Walking through walls is yet
another. Strength of an elephant (which you mention below) is another.
There's several score of them listed in [Patanjali]. The TM organization
teaches a select few, of which "Yogic Flying" is the most famous and
[melo-] dramatic.
>
>> Moreover, as I just pointed out to Lou, the notion that those who
>> fully develop their potential will be able to do things science
>> considers impossible is hardly a "fringe" view, nor is it only
>> the view of fuzzy thinkers.
>
>"Develop their potential" is Judy-speak for "levitation, walking through
>solid walls, becoming invisible, and developing the strength of an
>elephant" -- all claims made by the TM Movement for its TM-Sidhi
>technique.
All of these are claims that Patanjali makes for the techniques he lists in
his Yoga Sutras. The TM organization teaches a sub-set of these techniques
and maintains that Patanjali's purpose in listing them is so that people
might practice them as part of their practice of Yoga. The purported power
is merely a side-effect of using the particular technique to grow towards
enlightenment.
But you're aware of our claims and ignore them.
Typical skeptopath.
Avital Pilpel
>First, TM isn't a cult.
Yes, it is. Not perhaps as destructive to members as other cults, but still
a cult. It has all the requirments: A charismatic leader who can do no
wrong; silly claims about impossible things; and most important of all -
fleecing money from the gullible cult members in order to line the pockets
of their leader(s).
>Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
Not according to the laws of physics it ain't. And there is not ONE TINY
ITSY BITSY SMALL LITTLE SHREAD OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE provided by ANYBODY in
the TM, or anybody else for that matter, that the laws of physics are wrong
or that they can break them. A lot of tall tales and vague promises - yes;
evidence - no.
If you mean "potentially" in a *logical* sense, then it is just as
"potentially possible" for people to turn into fire-breathing dragons or for
the world to end this minute.
>It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
>individual will fly within a given time frame.
Oh, I see. And I can turn into a fire-breathing dragon.
Note I didn't say I can do it *now*, or that I will be able to do it in any
"given time frame". Note also that I never *did* in fact turn into a fire
breathing dragon in the past. I just claim that I *can* do so if I *really*
wanted to (and there weren't all those bad skeptics around doubting my
ability to do so and filling me with "negative energy" by asking me to
actually *do* what I claim is oh-so-possible).
Surely this is enough evidence for you, if you are convinced by what TM says
about people flying: After all they wouldn't just *lie*, would they, right?
Neither would I, right?
So, I am more powerful and amazing than the Maharishi Yogi (sp?) himself.
After all, he is a rather powerless person who only claims he could *fly* if
he really wanted to, without giving one shread of evidence that this is
possible. I, on the other hand, *could* turn into a fire breathing dragon
(with *really* big wings, too, so I could *also* fly!). If he doesn't have
to produce any evidence, neither do I.
>The only remarks of Sagan I'm aware of concerning TM are those he
>made in "Demon-Haunted World." They amounted to a few paragraphs
>and most certainly "exposed" nothing except his own ignorance and
>arrogance.
OH? I have the book right here (so much for my "ignorance" on the matter).
The quote is from p. 16 of the soft cover edition.
Yup. He sure did. It shows TM for what it really is: a money-making agency
for its founder, based on people given empty promises "for a fee". Since
they have a lot of income from members and no outcome except for claming
that it is "possible" for people to fly with no evidence and claiming that
it was "thinking in unison" that collapsed the soviet union (or whatever),
two claims with
not one shread of evidence for them, no wonder this fraud "Maharishi" raked
in $3 billion.
>OK, let's have a closer look at what Sagan wrote:
>
>> "Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience--by many
>> criteria, already a religion--is the Hindu doctrine of Transcendental
>> Meditation (TM).
>
>What criteria?
Is *this* the case of "spurious logic" you find? Obviously Sagan simply
means very obvious and simple things: e.g. TM has a charismatic leader like
many religions leaders, a doctrine it claims is true (e.g. that people can
fly), a community of believers which hold TM's tenents to be true on faith,
a division of the wolrd to "believers" and "nonbelieves", etc.
Besides, for this logic to be "spurious", it would help if something in
Sagan's reasoning or claims *depended* on the fact that Sagan *called* it a
religion. Nothing in his argument does; he just uses the name here.
He does not claim, for example, that TM is bunk becasue religions are bunk
and TM is a religion. He claims it is bunk becasue it makes silly,
unverifiable, and outrageious claims that have no evidence. This is a fact -
no matter whether you - or Sagan - call TM a religion, a cult, or anything
else.
> And on what basis does he claim it is a *Hindu*
>doctrine? Has he examined what TM teaches, examined what
>Hinduism teaches, and compared the two? Has he considered TM's
>response to the charge that it is Hindu doctrine? He doesn't
>even report that TM maintains it is *not* Hindu doctrine.
TM maintains that people can fly, too.
> The soporific homilies of its founder and spiritual
>> leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
>
>Weasel phrase, "soporific homilies."
> As if that were an
>established fact rather than a matter of opinion.
By this criteria, nobody can ever use *any* adjectives becasue they are
always "matters of opinion" and not of "fact". Is the mountain outside
large? Yes? Is that a *fact*, or is that your *opinion* becasue you are
smaller than it?
Similarly with "bad" and "good". Is it a "bad" thing to rob you, assult you,
and burn your house? If you say "yes", does that mean "bad" is just a
"weasel word" by you to introduce *your* standards and values, just bcasue
it isn't quntifiable like "500 tons" or "two meters" are? Of course not!
See what I mean?
If someone says a montain is "large" instead of "it weighs 500 billion
tons", is that just "a matter of opinion"? No, becasue the adjective "large"
is correctly used to describe the mountain in this way by most speakers.
Similarly, "soporific homilities" are what these homilities are - by the
standard of most reasonable english speaking people who use the word
"soporific".
>> can be seen on television.
>
>As it happens, MMY was "seen on television" for only a short
>period on a cable channel in California (and perhaps a few other
>places--Lawson?).
So Sagan uttered a true statement. It can be seen on television. Presnet
tense, becasue this was the case when he *wrote this sentence*, at the time
his four-year-old son said the Maharishi is"god" when he saw him on TV.
>> Seated in the yogi position,
>
>(That would be lotus position. There are countless "yogi
>positions.")
So?
> his white hair here and there flecked with black,
>> surrounded by garlands and floral offerings, he has a *look*.
>
>Ah, a "look." Objective evidence of...what?
Simple, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. It is evidence of the
impression the Maharishi Yogi obviously tries to convey - of this smart,
all-knowing sage who *could* really fly, if he *wanted* too. Sagan's son was
obviously impressed by this "look".
It is just as objective as the fact that when I see someone frown I can say
he looks angry, or when I see someone smile he looks happy. Similalry when
I - or Sagan - see someone who looks like the Maharishi yogi, we get the
impression in my previous paragraph.
>> One day while channel surfing we came upon this visage. "You know
>> who that is?" asked our four-year-old son. "God."
>
>Well, there you go. If Sagan's four-year-old son takes a gander
>at MMY and thinks he's God, obviously MMY is engaged in some
>really serious pseudoscience. <snort>
No, but this is *not* Sagan's claim or way of reasoning. Sagan's claim here
is that the Maharishi has a "look", which - despite not being defined
explicitly - is obviously there. The fact that it is not quantifiable is no
more evidence it isn't there than the fact that I can't quantify how your
(or anybody's) face looks means they don't look like anything.
> The worldwide TM organization has an
>> estimated valuation of $3 billion.
>
>And so...?
See above. Where does this money come from? From the TM followers. Where
does it go? To the Maharishi's personal funds and projects. What does the
Maharishi give back to his believers for these $3 billion? *Promises* that
people *could* fly and baseless claims with no evidence that meditating
together lowers crime. What does this make the Maharishi? A fraud.
>> For a fee they promise through meditation to be able to walk you
>> through walls, to make you invisible, to enable you to fly.
>
>Here Sagan has obviously relied on other accounts by skeptics,
>which themselves were most likely based on TM-Ex materials. He
>hasn't bothered to verify the skeptics' reports with
>authoritative sources. He *assumes* the skeptics' reports are
>themselves authoritative, an assumption not based on objective
>evidence.
TRANSLATION OF JUDY'S RANT: Sagan hit a sore spot which she cannot refute or
turn into a word-game about the meaning of common English words.
Of course, one could go on how Judy uses "weasel words" like "obviously",
"most likely", and "authoritive", which - as Judy told us - are meaningless
words since they do not point to anything "objective", so they are nothing
but "personal opinion". Shame on you for using weasel words, Judy. But
let's stick to Sagan...
>The walking-through-walls and invisibility siddhis haven't been
>taught since the mid-'70s, first.
TRANSLATION: until the cult was firmly established enough to no longer need
*such* outrageous lies. Did the Maharishi use some of his $3 billion to
refund the money of people who joined TM due to these even more outrageous
claims of the earlier years? No? thought so.
> Second, no such promises are
>made by TM.
...any more.
> In fact, you have to demonstrate in writing that you
>understand you haven't been promised anything before you're
>allowed to take the course.
And this is supposed to be proof of TM's *innocence*????
TM is using here the same fraudulent scheme used in so-called "pyramid
schemes", psychic phone lines, and other frauds: you must sign or agree to a
disclaimer that the money you send is "legally" a free gift, or the psychic
phone call
"for entertainment purposes only".
In all three cases, you *are* promised - if not directly, *very* strongly so
by implication - that you will get rich, or talk to a real psychic, or be
able to fly; the "paper signing" ritual is just an attept to thwart possile
lawsuits when the gullible person realizes that you *cannot* make money from
a pyramid scheme, that there *are* no real psychics, and that people *can't*
fly.
>> By thinking in unison
>
>"Thinking in unison" is a highly inaccurate description of what
>goes on in TM-Sidhis practice. Again, Sagan hasn't bothered to
>check to see whether his *assumption* about what the TM-Sidhis
>entail is correct. But it's part of what he's leading up to.
The point is that whether it is accurate or not according to the TMers is
not the point. Sagan calls it "thinking in unison"; the TMers call it
"organizing our psychic energies into a concentrated form of the good of the
universe" - or whatever.
The *point* is, that *whether* you call what TMers did "thinking in unison"
*or* whatever the TMers call it, there IS NOT ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE it had
*anything* to do with lowering crime, or the collapse of the soviet union,
or any other world event, let alone cause them.
> they have, they say,
>> diminished the crime rate in Washington, D.C., and caused the collapse
>> of the Soviet Union, among other secular miracles. Not one smattering of
>> real evidence has been offered for any such claims.
>
>Here Sagan cites one claim that has been documented (not proved)
"not proven" is right. All that study showed is that *maybe* crime became
lower in Washington, D.C. at the time the TMers did whatever they did - and
even *this point* is under dispute.
But this means *absolutly nothing* even if true, becasue the claim was that
the TMers thing *casued* the decrease in crime. However, for every decrease
in crime there is an enourmous number of events that happened at the same
time *except* for the TMers praying, or whatever it was they did.
For example, at the time of this crime wave decrease, I went to the bathroom
1,546 times (say). therefore, I can just as easily claim It wasn't the TMers
thinking togethers which decreased crime in Washington, D.C. but it was the
psychic manifestations of me going to the bathroom that did it.
And, of course, me "going to the bathroom" is just the INACCURATE TERM
laymen use to describe the REAL metaphysical and deep things that I was
doing! After all, remember, I *could* turn into a dragon if I really wanted
to, so you better believe I didn't just "go to the bathroom" any more than
the TMers were just "thinking in unison".
I could explain more about this - what I was *really* doing in the bathroom
that reduced crime is closely tied to the way I *could* turn myelf into a
dragon - but you will have to send me money to reach such a level of
metaphysical understanding. The Maharishi doesn't teach for free, either,
now does he?
>By
>citing the two together, he implies there is no more evidence for
>the second than for the first, which is simply incorrect.
I doubt very much Sagan invented this - TM is obviously silly enough with
its claims that people could fly and meditation reduces crime, so there
would hardly be any need for him to invent any more silliness.
Can I cite the exact source of this claim? No. But I *do* recall you
claiming that TM no longer claims this and never said that while Mr.
Skolnick immeditaelly showed that TM did in fact do so. Therefore, your
denials carry little weight, considering the fact you were caught lying more
than once about the claims TM makes.
>Nor does TM consider reduction of crime via TM/TM-Sidhis practice
>to be "miraculous." That's another weasel word. It's one thing
>to claim, "We do miracles!" and quite another to present a
>detailed account of how the claimed results are supposedly
>achieved based on scientific principles
What the TMers "science" is not really science; it is the usual new-age
metaphsical babble which tends to use the words "quantum mechanics" and
other catch-phrases a lot, as if they actually knew anything about Quantum
mechanics or what physics really is like.
CALLING it "based on scientific principles" does not make it so, when the
TMers claims are in violation of the laws and principles of physics - that
is, the principles of *real* physics that *real* physicists do experiments
with, not what the TMers *call* physics.
Therefore, it *is* a claim that TM can work miracles: that it can violate
the laws of (real) physics. After all, if I claim that my ability to turn
into a red dragon is "based on scientific principles" it doesn't make it
so - *especially* when I also use *my own definiton* of what "scientific
principles" are, like the TMers do, now does it?
>, along with supporting
>statistical evidence.
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
> Whether one thinks the account makes
>scientific sense or the statistics hold up is a different issue.
No, it is the main issue.
What determines whether it is a "miracolous claim" or not depends on whether
it is a claim that is in violation of the *real* laws of physics, not on
whether or not it violates what the TMers *call* "the laws of physics".
Since the TMers claims violate the *real* laws of physics in a big way and
their so-called "physics" is merely nonsensical babble which has no relation
to real physics, the TM'ers claims are claims of miracles.
>TM does not claim to work miracles; it claims to utilize natural
>principles.
Only that these "natural principles" are only "natural principles" according
to *them*, and not according to any physicist or serious scientist.
Physicists have other, far less flattering words to describe what the TMers
*CALL* "natural principles".
> TM sells folk
>> medicine, runs trading companies, medical clinics and "research"
>> universities, and has unsuccessfully entered politics.
>
>(Hm, I guess Sagan disagrees with Andrew here, since Andrew claims
>what TM sells is not traditional Ayur-Veda "folk medicine" but
>something TM invented itself just to make money.)
Again, you are meddling with words here. Whether TM invented these
traditional medicines or not, it is irrelevant to the *main point*: TM sells
these medicines. These medicines do not work. Therefore, TM is selling snake
oil.
>Note the weasel use of quotes around "research." MUM *is* a
>research university.
According to the dictionary defintion, maybe. According to the standards of
science, no. The "research" done there bears *NO RELATION EXCEPT IN NAME* to
any REAL research that is done in any REAL university. Contrary to what you
claim, it does no work that is peer reviewed in the real sense of the word.
It does no "research" that gives repeatable results. It publishes no
reproducible results. Etc., etc. Not real research.
> Even if one does not consider the hundreds
>of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies on TM conducted at
>MUM to be "real" research
NAME ONE.
Oh, wait: the "peers" that review these "hundreds" of articles are fellow
TMers, right? And the journals where these "studies" were published were
*also* pro-TM journals with an agenda, right?
Gee... what a surprise...
> (again an assumption, not an
>established fact), there is plenty of research on non-TM-related
>topics that goes on at MUM and which likewise has been published
>in peer-reviewed journals.
Again, NAME ONE.
And at any rate, if you are using the *non*-TM research in such institutions
as proof that there is "research" going on there, you're case is in *deep*
trouble. Obviously Sagan's point is that there is *no such thing as TM
scientific research*. He is correct. The fact that there *might* be some
research on *non-TM-related* topics in such institutions is besides the
point! If anything, it shows that the TMers *know* that there is no real "TM
research" and that they must do *some* real research in their institutions
to justify their name.
> Moreover, MUM researchers routinely
>get research grants from NIH and other respected scientific
>institutions, for studying non-TM-related *and* TM-related
>matters.
So what? TT practitioners, too, get such grants. TT is still bunk. Who is
doing research is decided not by who gets money, but by who can show
significant reproducible results about their research subject. All the
research in "TM related subjects" showed NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to the truth
of any of the tenents of TM. People *still* cannot fly, and TM *still* does
not lower crime, nor is anybody getting any close to either one of these
goals. They might be getting money, but they are not *really* doing any
research, now are they?
>> In its oddly charismatic leader,
>
>"Oddly"?
Yes.
>> its promise of community,
>
>TM doesn't promise "community," but since "community" is a
>standard promise of cults, Sagan thought he'd throw it in.
TM does promise community: like in other cults, "the believers" form a
community with a feeling of brotherhood due to the shared knowledge of "the
truth" from their "leader", which makes them special as opposed to the
"non-believers".
Of course it does not promise a community on any formal paper, but *no* cult
does that; it doesn't mean that the feeling of community is not one of its
strong drawing points of cults in general and TM in particular.
>> and the offer of magical powers in exchange for money and
>> fervent belief,
>
>TM does not consider the siddhis "magical."
It still is, what TM "considers" nothwithstanding. It makes claims that
violate the laws of physics.
> Nor does belief play
>any role in what *is* offered.
Maybe, but nobody *without* fervent belief in TM claims will ever *take*
whatever TM offers seriously, now would day?
>> it is typical of many pseudosciences marked for sacerdotal export
>
>"Sacerdotal: of or relating to priests or a priesthood." Now TM
>is supposedly exporting a priesthood. Where's the objective
>evidence, Dr. Sagan?
Sagan obviously simply mean that TM plans even further expansion. Evidence?
Look at its history.
> As amusing as some of
>> pseudoscience may seem, as confident as we may be that we would never be
>> so gullible as to be swept up by such a doctrine,
>
>Note that Sagan has not described any doctrine.
How about the claims that by some sort of mysterious force people would be
able to fly and lower crime while meditating?
> we know it's happening
>> all around us. Transcendental Meditation and Aum Shinrikyo seem to have
>> attracted a large number of accomplished people,
>
>This is perhaps the most seriously biased and thoughtless comment
>Sagan makes, to equate Aum Shinrikyo, with its deadly poison gas
>attacks, and TM--with no qualification whatsoever, no indication
>that there are any significant differences between the two.
There aren't any *relevant* differences in the context of Sagan's arguments.
He is concerned with cults abilities to *destroy critical thinking*: with
their ability to make preposterous claims with no evidence and to still
attract fanatical followers who give their time, money, and dedication to
the whims of the cult's charismatic leader. *This* is the level Sagan
comapres these two cults on in the previous two pages of "The Demon haunted
world". And he is right in his claim.
>In fact, what Sagan is suggesting is that there is something
>sinister about TM--that all these accomplished and intelligent
>people are victims of hypnotic mind control.
Something sinister - yes; "hypnotic mind control" - no (there is no such
thing, nor does Sagan claim there is).
The sinister thing here is the corruption of minds and spirits by a
charismatic leader. It is a case of cult behavior, like many others that
are *very* well documented in literature - read, for example, Festinger's
classic work "When Profecy fails". The Maharishi does not have supernatural
powers that enable him to be sinister in a mysterious way. He is sinister in
the usual way other cult leaders are.
>That's the
>"something else" he refers to.
Indeed so. The truth hurts, I guess.
> That's the assumption he makes
>and wants the reader to make as well.
...due to the small fact that he showed TM a). Makes silly claims about
people flying and its nonexistant ability to lower crime, b). never produces
any evidence for it, c). sells quack medicines and other worthless stuff,
and d). made $3 billion for its founder by just *promising* these empty
promises to gullible people.
But nooooo, nothing sinister here. "for entertainment purposes only"...
>And *that* is based on the assumption that TM cannot possibly
>have anything valid to say
No. It is based on the assumption that TM *never did* show anything valid to
say: it never produced *any* evidence that *any* of its claims are worth
anything. given this dismal track record, is it "possible" that it will some
day produce something worthwhile? logically, yes. practically, no.
>, even though Sagan obviously doesn't
>know what TM says, except for what other skeptics who aren't any
>better informed than he is have said TM says.
Yeah, right. And you don't know my SECRET DOCTRINE on how I can turn into a
red dragon either, so I guess you are IN NO POSITION to criticize me for
taking money for people by claiming I can do this...
It is quite enough to know that TM claimed people can fly and that it can
lower crime and did not produce one shread of evidence to show it, but
managed to make one person - its leader - very, very rich by making such
empty promises to people who believed them.
>Note that Sagan offers *no* objective evidence we could go check
>out for ourselves
He does offer quite a lot. It can be checked that TM made $3 billion for the
Maharishi. It can be checked how many papers were published in research
journals. It can be checked whether anybody actually learned to fly by TM or
whether it lowered crime rate. It can be checked that the medicines TM sells
are worthless. And these are just a few of the *very* verifiable claims
Sagan makes.
> that TM is a pseudoscience. Everything he
>mentions is "evidence" only if one first assumes the conclusion,
>i.e., that TM's claims cannot be valid.
Not that they *cannot* be. Much simpler: that they are *not* valid, becasue
they violate the basic laws of physics *and* have no objective evidence
whatsoever to back them.
And this is not something he assumes out of the blue: it is the only logical
conclusion when one puts together TMs incredible claims with its utter
failure to show any evidence for them.
Mr. Foot Grenade
group. They are terrified of encountering real religion. They scorn
but tolerate _established_ cults such as Christianity and Judaism. But
they excoriate new religions as "Cults" with nothing but the skimpiest
research. Certainly, I have seen very few skeptics in this group who
have been trained in religion - except of course, as filtered through
skeptical sources such as George Smith and other authors prolific in
Prometheus Books. They erroneously think that their oft-touted
"knowledge" in science entitles them to their myopic views. Just as
Carl Sagan thought. Any religion which claims to offer "gnosis" -
immediate insight into the soul and the divine - ruffles skeptical
feathers in a way the claims of mainstream religion do not. This is
because mainstream religion is belief system ideation which can be
easily shelved and ignored as a repository of ancient superstition. New
religions, however, claim to offer experience and liberation instead of
belief. Should practitioners in these "cults" discover new ways of
being in the world, new faculties of the soul, or a new relationship to
the divine, they are perceived as dangerous to the anally retentive
skeptic, whose first response is to quash these "cultists" who are
claiming to have a knowledge unavailable from the established religions,
or from science. It's mostly a case of fear and jealousy.
===================================================
Of what use is the illumination of the entire world,
if the self is in darkness? -- Osho
Harold L
>If you mean "potentially" in a *logical* sense, then it is just as
>"potentially possible" for people to turn into fire-breathing dragons or for
>the world to end this minute.
>
>>>>It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
>>>>individual will fly within a given time frame.
>
>Oh, I see. And I can turn into a fire-breathing dragon.
>
>Note I didn't say I can do it *now*, or that I will be able to do it in any
>"given time frame". Note also that I never *did* in fact turn into a fire
>breathing dragon in the past. I just claim that I *can* do so if I *really*
>wanted to (and there weren't all those bad skeptics around doubting my
>ability to do so and filling me with "negative energy" by asking me to
>actually *do* what I claim is oh-so-possible).
ROTFLMAO.
I too would like to become a fire breathing dragon. How can I join
this great new movement? Where do I send the check?
I understand that you are only promising me the possibility of
becoming a fire breathing dragon, and that you in no way guarantee any
actual results, but I'm willing to join anyway.
--HL
Harold L
>The *point* is, that *whether* you call what TMers did "thinking in unison"
>*or* whatever the TMers call it, there IS NOT ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE it had
>*anything* to do with lowering crime, or the collapse of the soviet union,
>or any other world event, let alone cause them.
>
Exactly. There is no evidence of this because the TMers were not
responsible for these events. They were in fact caused by a new
movement known as the Church of the Fire Breathing Dragons. By using
our powers of burping aloud in unison we were able to lower crime and
bring and end to communism; except in China where communism still
prevails because they have their own fire breathing dragons. You
can't win them all.
PMccutc103
>*I* learned how to levitate the TM way, Andrew. So has EVERY person who
>ever took the course. However, that doesn't mean that I or anyone else CAN
>levitate.
This strikes me as a rather odd use of the English language. If I were to say
"I learned to ride a bicycle at the age of four," you could reasonably infer
that I am claiming that I can ride a bike now. Or, at a minimum, that there
was some point at which I had the ability to ride a bike, even if injury or
illness prevents me from doing it now. You could even infer that I had ridden
a bike at age four.
> Having learned the technique that Patanjali claims will lead to
>"passage through the skies" isnt' the same as actually accomplishing the
>end-point of the technique (assuming, of course, that the end-point
>exists).
Has anybody actually used this technique to levitate? If so, is there some
sort of proof? Is there any reason to believe that it will actually lead to
levitation?
--
Pete McCutchen
Dan
wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>>
>> Great, Andrew's back to tell us how stupid we are.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Well, Dan, it's a lousy job, but somebody's gotta do it.
It's my experience that when someone runs out of logical argument that
they resort to insults and name calling.
Dan
Brian Milnes
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <36290CB2.2276@no_spam.nasw.org>...
>Judy Stein wrote:
snip>>
>> First, TM isn't a cult.
>
>cult.
>
>members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
There's a little problem here, Andrew, that you seem to have trouble getting
to grips with, and that is, as I suspect you've guessed already, that it
isn't possible to join the TM movement. I suppose that you could call the
people who work full time or spend all of their time involved with TM
activities "the TM movement". But as you'll know from lurking here at
a.m.t., there's plenty of folks who have done Siddhis or become teachers
(Governors, in TM parlance) that don't even consider themselves part of the
TM "establishment".
(If I'm wrong, please let me know how.)
The vast majority of people who learn to meditate do so, and subsequently
practice the technique. Many don't continue, for a variety of reasons.But
most people who have learnt would not consider themselves "a member of the
TM movement". That's certainly how I feel.
Pretty difficult to imagine how we'd display any cultish tendencies then.
Unless that was your predisposition, that you were trying to justify.
Again.
Brian
Dan
<asko...@nasw.org> wrote:
>
>The opinion of most authorities on cults? Members of the TM Movement are
>members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
And how do you become a 'member' of the TM Movement? I've been
meditating for 25 years and have never been a 'member'. Your
statement contains no fact.
Dan
Lawson English
[a ludicrous amount of junk snipt]
Your entire article can be summarized thusly:
There is no TM research that qualifies as "real" research and
therefore all of TM claims must be wrong.
I can't attest to the validity of any of the research cited below, but
I'd like to point out that it took only a few minutes to track down
this URL, and I'd expect a "skeptic" to at least *occassionally* check
the facts for himself before shooting his mouth off. There IS research
published on the TM technique, the Yogic FLying technique and so on.
Here's a small sampling, peer-reviewed and otherwise, as found at:
<http://www.TM.org/research/bibliographies/recent_research.html#anchor225250>
PART I: PHYSIOLOGY
The Studies in the First Two Sections Document Changes during the
Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Technique Unless Otherwise
Stated.
A: Metabolic, Biochemical, and Cardiovascular Changes
431. GLASER, J. L.; BRIND, J. L.; VOGELMAN, J. H.; EISNER , M. J.;
DILLBECK, M. C.; WALLACE, R. K.; and ORENTREICH, N. Elevated serum
dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels in practitioners of the
Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi Program. A version of this
paper was published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15(4): 327-341,
1992.
Indications of Younger Biological Age: Increased DHEAS Levels in
Female and Older Male Practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi program.
432. PUGH, N. D.; WALTON, K. G.; and CAVANAUGH, K. L. Can time series
analysis of serotonin turnover test the theory that consciousness is a
field? Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 14: 372, 1988.
Increased Serotonin Turnover Correlated with Group Size of TM-Sidhi
Participants.
433. HILL, D. A. Beta-adrenergic receptor sensitivity, autonomic
balance and serotonergic activity in practitioners of Transcendental
Meditation. Doctoral dissertation, Maharishi International University,
U.S.A. Dissertation Abstracts International 50(8): 3330-B, 1989.
Decreased Sensitivity to Stress Hormones; Increased Autonomic Balance;
More Stable Balance of the Physiology.
434. WALTON, K. G.; BROWN, G. M.; PUGH , N.; MACLEAN C.; and
GELDER-LOOS, P. Indole-mediated adaptation: Does melatonin mediate
resistance to stress in humans? Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 16:
273, 1990.
Decreased Melatonin Turnover; Decreased State-Trait Anxiety.
435. WALTON, K. G.; GELDERLOOS, P.; PUGH, N.; MACRAE, P. ; GODDARD,
P.; MACLEAN, C.; and LEVITSKY, D. Stress and serotonin turnover in
normal subjects: relation to serotonin deficiencies in mental
disorders. Abstract presented at the 5th International Congress of
Psychophysiology, Budapest, Hungary, 9-13 July, 1990.
Increased Whole Body Serotonin Metabolism; Reduced Mood Disturbance.
436. MACLEAN, C. R. K.; WALTON, K. G.; WENNEBERG, S. R.; LEVITSKY, D.
K.; WAZIRI, R.; and SCHNEIDER, R. H. Alterations in Plasma Serotonin
Reactivity to Laboratory Stress after Four Months Practice of the
Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Presented at the Second
International Symposium on Serotonin from All Biology and Pharmacology
Therapeutics. Houston, TX, September, 1992.
Decreased Baseline Plasma Serotonin Relative to Controls. (In contrast
to whole body serotonin metabolism, low plasma serotonin indicates
deceased stress and decreased risk of high blood pressure.)
437. MACLEAN, C. R. K.; WALTON, K. G.; WENNEBERG, S. R.; LEVITSKY, D.
K; MANDARINO, J. V.; WAZIRI, R.; and SCHNEIDER, R. H. Altered cortisol
response to stress after four months practice of the Transcendental
Meditation program. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 18(2): 1541,
1992.
Improved Adaptation to Stress: Reduced Cortisol Levels in
Non-Stressful Situations and Enhanced Cortisol Response During
Stressful Challenge with Rapid Return to Baseline.
438. LÖLIGER, S. A. Relationship between subjective bliss,
5-hydroxy-3-indoleacetic acid and the collective practice of
Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program. Summary of
Doctoral Dissertation, Maharishi International University, U.S.A.
Dissertation Abstracts International 52(1): 551, 1990.
Increased Serotonin Turnover and Subjective Experience of Bliss during
Meditation and in Daily Activity Correlated with the Size of a Group
of TM-Sidhi Participants.
439. MACLEAN, C. R. K.; WALTON, K. G.; WENNEBERG, S. R.; LEVITSKY, D.
K.; MANDARINO, J. V.; WAZIRI, R.; and SCHNEIDER, R. H. Altered
responses of cortisol, GH, TSH, and testosterone to acute stress after
four months' practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM). Presented at
the New York Academy of Sciences meeting on Brain Corticosteroid
Receptors: Studies on the Mechanism, Function, and Neurotoxicity of
Corticosteroid Action, Arlington, VA, March 2-5, 1994.
More Adaptive Biochemical Response to Stress: Decreased Baseline
Cortisol and Decreased Overall Cortisol During Stress Session;
Decreased TSH Response to Stress; Increased GH Response to Stress;
Increased Testosterone Response to Stress.
440. INFANTE, J. R.; SAMANIEGO, F.; MARTINEZ, M.; ROLDAN, A.; HORTAS,
M.; LOPEZ, E.; CASTEJON, J.; POYATOS, R.; PERAN, F.; and GARRIDO, F.
Circadian rhythm alteration by a mental technique for stress
reduction. European Journal of Endocrinology (formerly Acta
Endocrinologica) Supplement 2, Vol. 130, Oslo, Norway, 1994.
Biochemical Indications of Decreased Stress (Lower Levels of ACTH;
Beta-Endorphin; CD4 Lymphocytes; and Higher Levels of Natural Killer
Cells, Implying Increased Protection from Cancer).
B: Electrophysiological and Electroencephalographic Changes
441. LYUBIMOV, N. N. Mobilization of the hidden reserves of the brain.
Program Abstracts of the 2nd Russian-Swedish Symposium "New Research
in Neurobiology,"Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical
Sciences, Moscow, May 19-21, 1992.
Mobilization of the Hidden Reserves of the Brain: Wider Distribution
of the Brain's Response to Sensory Input.
442. ORLOVA, T. V.; PETRENKO, E. V.; and LYUBIMOV, N. N. Cerebral
control of afferent somatosensory projections. Presented at the
International Symposium of Macro and Microlevels of Brain Organization
in the Norm and Pathology, Moscow, 1992.
Increased Amplitude of Cortical and Brain Stem Responses to
Somatosensory Stimuli.
443. SPLITTSTOESSER, W. EEG analysis during meditation: A literature
review and experimental study (Original title:
Elektroencephalographische Untersuchung bei der Meditation: Literatur
und eigene Erfahrung). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johannes
Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany, 1983.
EEG Indications of Restful Alertness: Coexistence of High and Low
Amplitude Theta Activity with Alpha Activity; Occurrence of Delta
Waves with Occasional Overlap by Fast Frequencies; High Amplitude
Theta Activity Alternating with Alpha Activity; Increased
Intrahemispheric Coherence in the Alpha and Theta Frequency Bands.
444. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W., and GELDERLOOS, P. Topographic EEG brain
mapping during Yogic Flying. International Journal of Neuroscience 38,
427-434, 1988.
Stabilized Restful Alertness: Alpha Activity During Yogic Flying.
445. TRAVIS, F. T. An empirical test of Maharishi's junction point
model of states of consciousness. Modern Science and Vedic Science
4(1): 43-56, 1990.
Indication of Pure Consciousness at the Transition between Waking,
Sleeping, and Dreaming: Spreading and Increased Duration of Alpha
Activity to the Frontal Cortex.
446. CRANSON, R.; GODDARD, P.; ORME-JOHNSON, D.; and SCHUSTER, D. P300
under conditions of temporal uncertainty and filter attenuation:
Reduced latency in long-term practitioners of TM. Supplement to
Psychophysiology 27:4A, August 1990.
Faster Neurocognitive Processing.
447. TRAVIS, F. T., and ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. EEG coherence and power
during yogic flying. International Journal of Neuroscience 54: 1-12,
1990.
Increased EEG Coherence and Power during Yogic Flying.
448. TRAVIS, F. T. Eyes open and TM EEG patterns after one and eight
years of TM practice. Psychophysiology 28(3a): S58, (Abstract), 1991.
Higher Baseline Alpha EEG Coherence in Long-Term Meditators.
449. GODDARD, P. H. Transcendental Meditation as an intervention in
the aging of Neurocognitive Function: Reduced Age-Related Declines of
P300 Latencies in elderly practitioners. Summary of Doctoral
Dissertation, Maharishi International University, U.S.A. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53 (6): 3189B, 1992.
Preservation of Neurocognitive Processing Speed with Age.
450. MISKOV, S. Endogenous evoked potential in subjects practicing
Transcendental Meditation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Department of Clinical Neurophysiology of the Clinics for Neurology,
Psychiatry, Alcoholism and Other Abuses of the Clinical Hospital
"Sestre Milosrdnice," Zagreb University, Zagreb, Croatia, 1992.
Increased Efficiency and Decreased Age-Related Deterioration of
Cognitive Information Processing as Measured by Event-Related
Potentials.
451. TRAVIS, F. T. The junction point model: A field model of waking,
sleeping, and dreaming, relating dream witnessing, the waking/sleeping
transition, and Transcendental Meditation in terms of a common
psychophysiologic state. Dreaming 4(2): 91-104, 1994.
Indication of Pure Consciousness at the Transition Between Waking,
Sleeping, and Dreaming: Increased Alpha Activity.
452. TRAVIS, F. and MISKOV, S. P300 latency and amplitude during
eyes-closed rest and Transcendental Meditation practice.
Psychophysiology 31:S67, (Abstract), 1994.
Improved Efficiency of Information Transfer in the Brain: Shorter
Latencies of Auditory Evoked Potentials (P300).
C: Health
453. ALEXANDER, C. N.; LANGER, E. J.; NEWMAN, R. I. ; CHANDLER, H. M.;
and DAVIES, J. L. Transcendental Meditation, mindfulness, and
longevity: an experimental study with the elderly. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 57(6): 950-964, 1989.
Benefits for the Elderly Demonstrating Reversal of Aging: Increased
Longevity (Higher Survival Rate); Reduction of Systolic Blood Pressure
to More Ideal Levels; Improved Mental Health (Improvements on Nurses'
Mental Health Ratings); Increased Cognitive Flexibility (Less
Premature Cognitive Commitment, Increased Learning Ability on
Associate Learning and Greater Perceptual Flexibility); Increased Word
Fluency; Improvements in Self-Reported Measures of Behavioral
Flexibility and Aging (Greater Ability to Cope with Inconvenience,
Reduced Feelings of Being Old, Less Impatience with Others); Greater
Sense of Well-Being (Feeling Better During the TM Program, High
Interest in the TM Program and High Ratings of the Value of the TM
Program; Feeling Better and More Relaxed After the TM Program).
454. SCHNEIDER, R. H.; ALEXANDER, C. N.; and WALLACE, R. K. In search
of an optimal behavioral treatment for hypertension: A review and
focus on Transcendental Meditation. In Personality, Elevated Blood
Pressure, and Essential Hypertension., eds. E. H. Johnson, W. D.
Gentry, and S. Julius, pp. 291-316. Washington, D. C. : Hemisphere
Publishing Corp., 1992.
Reduction of High Blood Pressure.
455. BLASDELL, K. S. Acute immunoreactivity, Transcendental
Meditation, and Type A/B behavior. Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation,
Department of Physiological and Biological Sciences, Maharishi
International University, U.S.A. Dissertation Abstracts International
50(10): 4806B, 1990.
Improved Immune Response to Stress.
456. HARATANI, T., and HENMI, T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation
(TM) on the mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of
Industrial Health 32(7): 346, 1990.
Improvements in General Physical and Mental Well-Being in Industrial
Workers:
Decreased Physical Complaints; Decreased Impulsive Tendency; Reduced
Emotional Instability; and Decreased Neurotic Tendency.
457. HARATANI, T., and HENMI, T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation
(TM) on the health behavior of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of
Public Health 37 (10): 729, 1990.
Improved Sleep and Decreased Smoking in Industrial Workers: Decreased
Time to Fall Asleep; Reduced Waking During the Night; Decreased
Smoking; Fewer Cigarettes Smoked per Day.
458. HERRON, R. E. The Impact of Transcendental Meditation practice on
medical expenditures. Summary of Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Management, Maharishi International University, U.S.A. Dissertation
Abstracts International 53(12):4219A, 1993.
Decreased Medical Care Expenditures; Greatest Savings for Elderly and
High Cost People.
459. WENNEBERG, S. R.; SCHNEIDER, R. H.; MACLEAN, C. R. K.; LEVITSKY,
D. K.; WALTON, K. G.; MANDARINO, J.; and WAZIRI, R. The effect of
Transcendental Meditation on ambulatory blood pressure and
cardiovascular reactivity. Presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the
American Psychosomatic Society, Boston, MA, April 13-16, 1994.
More Ideal Levels of Blood Pressure in Normotensive Subjects:
Decreased Mean Diastolic Ambulatory Blood Pressure.
460. SCHNEIDER, R. H.; NIDICH, S.; SHARMA, H.; ROBINSON, C.; FOSTER,
G.; NIDICH, R.; GOODMAN, R.; and ALEXANDER, C. Effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on lipid peroxide levels in
community-dwelling older adults. Presented at the Third International
Congress of Behavioral Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 6-9 July
1994.
Prevention of Disease: Lower Levels of Free-Radicals in the Elderly.
PART II: PSYCHOLOGY
A: Intelligence, Learning, and Academic Performance
461. CRANSON, R. W.; ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; GACKENBACH, J.; DILLBECK, M.
C.; JONES, C. H.; and ALEXANDER, C. N. Transcendental Meditation and
improved performance on intelligence-related measures: A longitudinal
study. Personality and Individual Differences 12(10): 1105-1116, 1991.
Improvements in General Intelligence Measured by Psychometric Tests
and Choice Reaction Time.
462. HEINSTEDT, E. Divergent production: An "intuitive" cognitive
style. Licentiate Dissertation, Lund University, Sweden, 1990.
Decreased Arousal; Broad Attention; Increased Perceptual and
Conceptual Flexibility.
463. FERGUSSON, L. C. Field independence and art achievement in
meditating and nonmeditating college students. Perceptual and Motor
Skills 75: 1171-1175, 1992.
Field Independence Correlated to College Art Achievement; Higher Field
Independence.
464. FERGUSSON, L. C. Field independence, Transcendental Meditation
and achievement in college art: A reexamination. Perceptual and Motor
Skills 77:1104-1106, 1993.
Growth of a Stable Internal Frame of Reference: Higher Level of Field
Independence; Correlation of Field Independence with Grade-Point
Average and Art Achievement.
465. SO KAM-TIM. Testing and Improving Intelligence and Creativity in
the Chinese Culture with Maharishi's Vedic Psychology: Toward a
Holistic & Universal Assessment. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Psychology, Maharishi International University, 1995.
Increased Creativity (Increased Ability to Interpret and Associate
Freely, Increased Productive Imagination); Increased Fluid
Intelligence (Increased Ability to Perceive Complex Relations, More
Effective Use of Short Term Memory, Improved Ability to Reason
Abstractly); Decreased Inspection Time (Increased Speed of Information
Processing, Decreased Noise in the Information Processing System,
Increased Focus); Increased Field Independence (Greater Ability to
Differentiate Experience, Greater Cognitive Clarity, Broad
Comprehension and Improved Ability to Focus); Increased Constructive
Thinking (Improved Emotional Coping, Improved Behavioral Coping,
Improvements on Categorical Thinking--Increased Flexibility of
Attitude and Increased Tolerance of Others); Decreased State and Trait
Anxiety.
B: Development of Personality
466. ALEXANDER, C. N.; RAINFORTH, M. V.; and GELDERLOOS, P.
Transcendental Meditation, self-actualization, and psychological
health: A conceptual overview and statistical meta-analysis. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality 6(5), 189-247, 1991.
Most Effective Means of Increasing Self-Actualization.
467. CHANDLER, H. M. Transcendental meditation and awakening wisdom: A
10-year longitudinal study of self-development (meditation).
Dissertation Abstracts International 51(10): 5048B, 1990.
Growth of Wisdom: Increased Ego Development--Improved Affective
Functioning and Cognitive Development.
468. AHLSTROM, H. H. Transcendental Meditation, adaptation mechanisms
and valuations. Doctoral dissertation, Maharishi International
University, 1991.
Increased Psychological Health and Orientation Towards Positive
Values.
469. ALEXANDER, C. N.; HEATON, D. P.; and CHANDLER, H. M. Advanced
human development in the Vedic Psychology of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi:
Theory and research. In Transcendence and Mature Thought in Adulthood,
eds. M. E. Miller and S. R. Cook-Greuter, pp. 39-70. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994.
This paper presents subjective experiences, theory, and research on
Maharishi's Seven States of Consciousness. It provides a conceptual
model showing how the higher states of consciousness in Maharishi's
Vedic Psychology extend beyond the developmental stages of modern
psychology and meet all the criteria of advanced development.
PART III: SOCIOLOGY
A: Rehabilitation: Drugs and Alcohol
470. ALEXANDER, C. N.; ROBINSON, P.; and RAINFORTH, M. Treating and
preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental
Meditation: A review and statistical meta-analysis. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly 11: 13-87, 1994.
Meta-analysis of 198 Studies: the Transcendental Meditation program is
Uniquely Effective for Treatment and Prevention of Drug, Alcohol, and
Cigarette Abuse.
471. ROYER, A. The role of the Transcendental Meditation technique in
promoting smoking cessation: A longitudinal study. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly 11: 219-236, 1994.
Increased Smoking Quit Rate Over a Two-Year Period.
B: Rehabilitation: Prisons -- Case Histories
472 ANKLESARIA, F., and KING, M. S. The nation-wide implementation of
Maharishi's integrated system of rehabilitation in Senegal--A case
study. In Scientific Research on Maharishi's Integrated System of
Rehabilitation, eds. F. Anklesaria and M. S. King. Fairfield IA: MIU
Press, 1993.
Almost Complete Cessation of Fights Between Inmates, Very Sharp
Reduction in Irritability and Aggressiveness; Improvement in Health;
Decrease in the Number of Medical Consultations--as much as 70-80%;
Marked Decrease in Drug Consumption; Improvement in Sleep; Reduced
National Recidivism.
C: Productivity and Quality of Life
473. Implementation of the Transcendental Meditation program for
Brazilian army officers and cadets. Official Report No. 271-A/2/DEP,
National Academy of Officers, Ministry of the Army, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 29 December 1991.
Increased Capacity of Attention; Improved Memory of Details; Increased
Ability to Carry out Orders; Increased Physical Strength; Reduced
Baseline Heart Rate.
474. ANKLESARIA, F., and KING, M. S. Developing the full potential of
police officers: Maharishi's integrated system of rehabilitation in
the Brazilian military police forces. In Scientific Research on
Maharishi's Integrated System of Rehabilitation, eds. F. Anklesaria
and M. S. King. Fairfield IA: MIU Press, 1993.
Improved Health, Decreased Disciplinary Problems and an Improved
Public Image.
475. ALEXANDER, C. N.; SWANSON, G. C.; RAINFORTH, M. V.; CARLISLE, T.
W.; TODD, C. C.; and OATES, R. M. Effects of the Transcendental
Meditation program on stress reduction, health, and employee
development: A prospective study in two occupational settings.
Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal 6: 245-262, 1993.
Reduced Anxiety, Insomnia, Fatigue, Cigarette and Hard Liquor Use;
Improved Health, Employee Effectiveness, Job Satisfaction, and Job
Relationships.
476. BROOME, V. J. Relationship between participation in
Transcendental Meditation and the functionality of marriage. Masters
thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa,
1989.
Improved Marital Functionality (Overall Positive Couple Agreement,
Marital Satisfaction, Personality Issues, Communication, Marital
Cohesion and Marital Adaptability.)
The Following Papers in This Section Document the Growth of Coherence
in the Collective Consciousness of States, Nations and the World.
477. ASSIMAKIS, P. D., and DILLBECK, M. C. Time series analysis of
improved quality of life in Canada: Social change, collective
consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. Psychological Reports 1995
(In press).
Improved Quality of National Life: Improvements on a Weekly Index
Including Motor Vehicle Fatalities, Homicide, and Suicide (Canada,
1983-1985); Improvements on a Monthly Index Including Motor Vehicle
Fatalities, Homicide, Suicide, Cigarette Consumption, and Worker-Days
Lost in Strikes (Canada, 1972-1986).
478. GELDERLOOS, P.; CAVANAUGH, K. L.; and DAVIES, J. L. (1990). The
dynamics of US-Soviet relations, 1979-1986: Effects of reducing social
stress through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program. In
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics
Section, Alexandria, VA.
Improved U.S.A.--Soviet Relations: Improved U.S.A. Statements and
Actions Towards the U.S.S.R. and Improved U.S.S.R. Statements and
Actions Towards the U.S.A. (U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., 1979-1986).
479. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; ALEXANDER, C. N.; and DAVIES, J. L. The
effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field: Reply to a
methodological critique. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34(2):
756-768, 1990.
Strong Replication of Original Research Methodology.
480. REEKS, D. L. Improved quality of life in Iowa through the
Maharishi Effect. Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation, Maharishi
International University, U.S.A. Dissertation Abstracts International
51(12), 1991.
Reduced Unemployment, Traffic Fatalities, and Crime Rate (Iowa,
1979-1986).
481. HATCHARD, G. D.; DEANS, A. J.; CAVANAUGH, K. L.; and
ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. The Maharishi Effect: A model for social
improvement: Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced
crime in Merseyside metropolitan area. Psychology, Crime, and Law
(1995, in press). Also presented by invitation to the Annual
Conference of the British Psychological Society on Criminal and Legal
Psychology, 1-3 March, 1993, Harrogate, England.
Decreased Crime Rate (Merseyside, England, 1988-1991).
482. HAGELIN, J. S.; ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; RAINFORTH, M.; CAVANAUGH,
K.; and ALEXANDER, C. N. Results of the national demonstration project
to reduce violent crime and improve governmental effectiveness in
Washington, D. C. Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
Technical Report 94:1, 1994.
Decreased Violent Crime Rate (Washington, D.C., June and July, 1993);
Increased Popular Support for U.S. President.
PART IV: THEORETICAL AND REVIEW PAPERS
A: Physiology
483. JEVNING, R.; WALLACE, R. K.; and BEIDEBACH, M. The physiology of
meditation: A review. A wakeful hypometabolic integrated response.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 16: 415-424, 1992.
Based upon a wide spectrum of physiological data on TM made available
by previous research, the authors hypothesize that meditation is an
integrated response with peripheral circulatory and metabolic changes
subserving increased central nervous activity, and discuss probable
objective markers of clear experience of samadhi or pure consciousness
as the subjectively identifiable goal of meditation.
484. WALLACE, R. K. The physiology of higher states of consciousness.
Paper presented at the Conference on Higher States of Consciousness:
Theoretical and experimental perspectives, Chicago, August, 1991.
The author delineates the empirically measurable physiological
correlates of higher states of consciousness.
485. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. Transcendental Meditation as a technique to
increase neural, cognitive and behavioral plasticity. Proceedings of
the Conference on Restorative Neurophysiology, Irkutsk, Russia, August
1992.
The author reviews research in support of the hypothesis that regular
practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique increases the
flexibility of the nervous system and improves general adaptive
ability.
486. WALTON, K. G., and LEVITSKY, D. A neuroendocrine mechanism for
the reduction of drug use and addictions by Transcendental Meditation.
Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 89-117, 1994.
Neurochemical Substrate of Chronic Stress and its Contribution to the
Development of Drug Addiction. Explains how the Transcendental
Meditation program Normalizes Physiological Imbalances Involved in
Addiction; Improved Balance and Well-Being.
487. ALEXANDER, C. N.; ROBINSON, P.; ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; SCHNEIDER,
R. H.; and WALTON, K. G. The effects of Transcendental Meditation
compared to other methods of relaxation in reducing risk factors,
morbidity, and mortality. Homeostasis 35: 4/5, 243-263, 1994.
This paper reviews four meta-analyses, which show the superiority of
Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program compared to
other relaxation and meditation techniques in producing deep rest,
decreasing anxiety, increasing self-actualization, and decreasing
substance abuse (cigarettes, drugs, alcohol). It also reviews
individual well-controlled studies which support the conclusion of the
meta-analyses. In addition, it provides a theoretical mechanism of the
effects of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program
in terms of normalization of the biochemical effects of stress.
B: Education
488. JONES, C. H. The impact of Maharishi's Vedic Science based
education in higher education: The example of Maharishi International
University. Modern Science and Vedic Science 3(2): 155-199, 1989.
The author suggests that holistic development of students occurs as a
result of implementing the technologies of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's
Vedic Science such as the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
program, and teaching techniques based on the principles of
Maharishi's Vedic Science.
489. DOW, M. A. Preparing the student to succeed at calculus. Modern
Science and Vedic Science 6 (1): 1994.
The author suggests that learning calculus involves three aspects:
knower, known, and process of knowing. Today's calculus reform deals
admirably with the last two aspects but leaves the development of the
student's full mental capacity, the knower, largely to chance. The
practice of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation technique at MIU
develops the knower and thereby gives at least two distinct
advantages: a relaxed, alert mind and an experiential framework for
feeling at home with the limit process.
C: Maharishi's Vedic Science: Physics
490. HAGELIN, J. S. The physics of immortality. Paper presented at
Isthmus Institute Conference, Dallas, TX, April, 1991.
The author suggests that physiological growth towards immortality is
possible when experience of the unified field of all the laws of
nature is maintained.
D: Maharishi's Vedic Psychology
491. DILLBECK, M. C., and ALEXANDER, C. N. Higher states of
consciousness: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Vedic Psychology of human
development. The Journal of Mind and Behavior 10(4): 307-334, 1989.
The authors suggest that adult development to higher states of
consciousness beyond the experience of waking, dreaming and sleeping
results from growth of maintenance of the experience of the Self.
492. DILLBECK, M. C. The concept of self in the Bhagavad-Gita and in
the Vedic Psychology of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: A further note on
testability. Psychologia--An International Journal of Psychology in
the Orient 33: 50-56, 1990.
This paper points out that in the Bhagavad-Gita the subjective
experience of transcendental or pure consciousness ("Self") is
described as having effects that have been measured through extensive
scientific research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation program.
493. GELDERLOOS, P. Maharishi's Vedic Psychology: Alleviate suffering
by enlivening bliss--reconnect the partial values of life with the
wholeness of life. Paper presented at the International Symposium on
Meditation, Psychotherapy, and Health, Noordwijkerhout, The
Netherlands, 16-18 March 1990.
This paper explains how Maharishi's Vedic Psychology is the
fulfillment of psychotherapy and reviews scientific research
indicating that Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi
program improve individual and collective physical and mental health.
494. DILLBECK, M. C. The Bhagavad-Gita: A case study in Maharishi's
Vedic Psychology. Modern Science and Vedic Science 4(2), 96-134, 1991.
The author analyzes the Bhagavad-Gita as a model case study from the
Vedic literature providing knowledge of the full range of human
development from ignorance to enlightenment.
495. ALEXANDER, C. N. Transcendental Meditation. In Encyclopedia of
Psychology (2nd edition), ed. R. J. Corsini, pp. 545-46. New York:
Wiley Interscience, 1994.
The author presents a basic introduction to Transcendental Meditation
and the scientific research on it.
E. Business and Industry
496. ALEXANDER, C. N.; HEATON, D. P.; and CHANDLER, H. M. Promoting
adult psychological development: Implications for management
education. Proceedings of the Association of Management, Human
Resource Management 2, 133-137, Orlando, Florida, August 1990.
Promotion of Psychological Development (Ego Development, Field
Independence and Intelligence).
497. GUSTAVSSON, B., and HARUNG, H. S. Organizational learning based
on transforming collective consciousness. The Learning Organization 1:
33-40, 1994.
The authors suggest that the level of development of consciousness is
primary in determining continuous learning of an individual and the
organization.
498. SCHMIDT-WILK, J. Developing consciousness in organizations: The
Transcendental Meditation program in business. Journal of Business and
Psychology 10 (4): 1995 (in press).
A review of research on the application of Maharishi's Transcendental
Meditation program in the workplace indicates: improved employee
health; increased job and life satisfaction; improved job performance
and productivity; increased job stability; and improved interpersonal
relations. These results are discussed from a model of developing
consciousness of the individual and developing corporate
consciousness.
F: Rehabilitation: Drugs and Alcohol
499. GELDERLOOS, P.; WALTON, K. G.; ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; and
ALEXANDER, C. N. Effectiveness of the Transcendental Meditation
program in preventing and treating substance misuse: A review.
International Journal of the Addictions 26: 293-325, 1991.
The authors review research indicating decreased substance abuse among
students, chronic users, and prison inmates.
500. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. Transcendental Meditation as an
epidemiological approach to drug and alcohol abuse: Theory, research,
and financial impact evaluation. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11:
119-168, 1994.
The author focuses on the contributions of the Transcendental
Meditation program to resolving broader social problems associated
with addiction. He proposes that drug and alcohol abuse are symptoms
of a general stress-addiction-crime epidemic in society. He then
reviews impressive sociological research findings showing how societal
disorder--experienced as crime, drug abuse, political conflict, and
economic instability--can be substantially reduced through the cost
effective programs of Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi
Ayur-Veda.
G: Rehabilitation: Prisons
501. KING, M. S. The theoretical foundations and practical validation
of Maharishi's integrated system of rehabilitation. In Scientific
Research on Maharishi's Integrated System of Rehabilitation, eds. F.
Anklesaria and M. S. King. Fairfield, IA: MIU Press, 1993.
This paper outlines the theoretical foundations of Maharishi's
Integrated System of Rehabilitation. It shows how this theory of
rehabilitation is validated by extensive scientific research and by
personal experience of meditating offenders. The author suggests that
this system of rehabilitation offers a solution to key problems within
the field of rehabilitation, including recidivism, the measurement of
rehabilitation, and the means of rehabilitation.
502. KIMBLE, C. J. Transcendental Meditation in the youth authority.
Youth Authority Quarterly 28, 1975.
Benefits experienced by Meditating Wards of the Youth Authority in
California.
H: Maharishi Effect: World Peace
503. CAVANAUGH, K. L.; KING, K. D.; and TITUS, B. D. Improving the
national economy through alliance with nature's government: Effects of
the group practice of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and
TM-Sidhi program. Modern Science and Vedic Science 4(1): 3-41, 1990.
Improved National Economy: Decreased Index of Inflation and
Unemployment.
504. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. Introduction to the proceedings of the
conference on approaches to creating a stable world peace. Modern
Science and Vedic Science 5(1-2): 1-30, 1992.
This paper is an introduction to a peace conference held at MIU, which
summarizes the presentations of the conference participants and
presents an overview of Maharishi's approach to world peace.
505. HAGELIN, J. S. Achieving world peace through a new science and
technology. Modern Science and Vedic Science 5(1-2): 48-75, 1992.
This paper examines scientific evidence for a new technology of world
peace based on the unified field of natural law and considers its
practical utilization through extended field effects of consciousness.
506. ALEXANDER, C. N. Peaceful body, peaceful mind, peaceful world.
Modern Science and Vedic Science 5(1-2): 150-164, 1992.
This paper outlines the development of peace within the individual and
explains how this development forms the basis of creating peace in the
world.
507. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. Theory and research on conflict resolution
through the Maharishi Effect. Modern Science and Vedic Science 5(1-2):
76-98, 1992.
This paper presents the Maharishi Effect as the basis for a practical
program to create world peace and describes scientific research
demonstrating the effectiveness of this program in generating
coherence and peace on all levels of collective life.
508. MORRIS, B. Maharishi's Vedic Science and Technology: The only
means to create world peace. Modern Science and Vedic Science 5(1-2):
199-207, 1992.
This paper analyzes the mechanics through which the experience of
transcendental consciousness creates peace in both individual and
collective consciousness. The paper also emphasizes the urgency of
establishing groups of world peace professionals to create peace for
the world.
Terry Smith
> Date: 16 Oct 1998 21:38:59 -0400
> In article <36240554...@proaxis.com>,
> "Mr. Foot Grenade" <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> Hot damn, Judy - you've kicked Andy's silly ass again. He's about as
> dense as Carl Sagan used to be when he drifted into nonscientific areas.
> With one major difference. Carl Sagan didn't habitually tell lies.
Whereas you do.
Terry
--
| Australia - Howard's '50s Theme Park. #
Doug Weller
>Judy Stein wrote in message ...
>
>>First, TM isn't a cult.
>
>Yes, it is. Not perhaps as destructive to members as other cults, but still
>a cult. It has all the requirments: A charismatic leader who can do no
>wrong; silly claims about impossible things; and most important of all -
>fleecing money from the gullible cult members in order to line the pockets
>of their leader(s).
>
>>Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
>
>Not according to the laws of physics it ain't.
There's a great pair of pictures in Randi's FlimFlam -- an official TM
picture supposedly showing someone levitating. Another, more convincing
picture, but of someone with no TM experience, no gymnastics experience,
in a lotus position bouncing on a mat, caught in mid bounce, and clearly
levitating!
Doug
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <36290CB2.2276@no_spam.nasw.org>...
> >Judy Stein wrote:
> snip>>
> >
> >cult.
> >
> >members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
>
> to grips with, and that is, as I suspect you've guessed already, that it
> isn't possible to join the TM movement. I suppose that you could call the
> people who work full time or spend all of their time involved with TM
> activities "the TM movement". But as you'll know from lurking here at
> a.m.t., there's plenty of folks who have done Siddhis or become teachers
> (Governors, in TM parlance) that don't even consider themselves part of the
> TM "establishment".
>
> (If I'm wrong, please let me know how.)
>
> The vast majority of people who learn to meditate do so, and subsequently
> practice the technique. Many don't continue, for a variety of reasons.But
> most people who have learnt would not consider themselves "a member of the
> TM movement". That's certainly how I feel.
>
> Pretty difficult to imagine how we'd display any cultish tendencies then.
>
> Unless that was your predisposition, that you were trying to justify.
>
> Again.
>
> Brian
Geesh Brian, the members of Jonestown, Scientology, Aum Shinrikyio, and
other destructive groups all insist(ed) that they are (were) not members
of any cult. It should be obvious that the followers of gurus are not
the best authorities to judge whether they belong to a cult.
You obviously don't like the fact that the great majority of experts who
study cults consider the TM Movement a cult or cult-like group. Hey, the
Scientologists don't like these experts either. You're in good company.
--Andrew Skolnick http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/photography/
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> On Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:31:30 -0500, "Andrew A. Skolnick"
> <asko...@nasw.org> wrote:
> >
> >members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
>
> meditating for 25 years and have never been a 'member'. Your
> statement contains no fact.
>
> Dan
You meditate, you say. Is that all you do?
If you want to become a member of the TM Movement, you will have to do a
lot more. For information on how to become more involved in the
Movement, visit your nearest TM center. Bring your checkbook or better
yet cash. You will be helped immediately.
Andrew A. Skolnick
The irrationality of TM apologists would be hilarious if it wasn't so
tragic. They spend half their time insisting that TM isn't a religion
and the other half lambasting critics as frightened and jealous bigots
for attacking their religion.
--Andrew Skolnick http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> >
> >If you mean "potentially" in a *logical* sense, then it is just as
> >"potentially possible" for people to turn into fire-breathing dragons or for
> >the world to end this minute.
> >
> >>>>It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
> >>>>individual will fly within a given time frame.
> >
> >Oh, I see. And I can turn into a fire-breathing dragon.
> >
> >Note I didn't say I can do it *now*, or that I will be able to do it in any
> >"given time frame". Note also that I never *did* in fact turn into a fire
> >breathing dragon in the past. I just claim that I *can* do so if I *really*
> >wanted to (and there weren't all those bad skeptics around doubting my
> >ability to do so and filling me with "negative energy" by asking me to
> >actually *do* what I claim is oh-so-possible).
>
>
> I too would like to become a fire breathing dragon. How can I join
> this great new movement? Where do I send the check?
>
> I understand that you are only promising me the possibility of
> becoming a fire breathing dragon, and that you in no way guarantee any
> actual results, but I'm willing to join anyway.
>
> --HL
HL,
Would you be interested in learning how to spin straw into gold? I'm
selling a sutra that will allow you to do that. Someday.
But of course, making gold is not the purpose of the sutra. Just an
incidental side effect.
-- Rumplestilskin http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
I spin straw only for myself, not for any other individual or
organization.
Ken Hassman
to line the pockets of their leaders."
As someone involved for the better part of 30 years it is true that I
spent money on advanced techniques, sidhis and courses. However, I don't
ever recall being "fleeced" or pressured to hand over my life savings. Any
course I ever attended, and there have been many, has been done voluntarily
and paid for voluntarily by me of my own free will.
I haven't gone to courses for the last 8 years and noone has called me
during that time to ask why I haven't been going to courses and would I
simply send some money. Never, ever.
You are misleading people when you state that people are being fleeced.
Ken
Avital Pilpel wrote in message <70bh71$brr$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
Brian Milnes
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <362A2235.3CE1@no_spam.nasw.org>...
>Brian Milnes wrote:
>>
>> Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <36290CB2.2276@no_spam.nasw.org>...
>> >Judy Stein wrote:
>> snip>>
>> >
>> >cult.
>> >
>> >members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
>>
getting
>> to grips with, and that is, as I suspect you've guessed already, that it
>> isn't possible to join the TM movement. I suppose that you could call the
>> people who work full time or spend all of their time involved with TM
>> activities "the TM movement". But as you'll know from lurking here at
>> a.m.t., there's plenty of folks who have done Siddhis or become teachers
>> (Governors, in TM parlance) that don't even consider themselves part of
the
>> TM "establishment".
>>
>> (If I'm wrong, please let me know how.)
>>
>> The vast majority of people who learn to meditate do so, and subsequently
>> practice the technique. Many don't continue, for a variety of reasons.But
the
>> TM movement". That's certainly how I feel.
>>
>> Pretty difficult to imagine how we'd display any cultish tendencies then.
>>
>> Unless that was your predisposition, that you were trying to justify.
>>
>> Again.
>>
>> Brian
>
>Geesh Brian, the members of Jonestown, Scientology, Aum Shinrikyio, and
>other destructive groups all insist(ed) that they are (were) not members
>of any cult. It should be obvious that the followers of gurus are not
>the best authorities to judge whether they belong to a cult.
>
>You obviously don't like the fact that the great majority of experts who
>study cults consider the TM Movement a cult or cult-like group. Hey, the
>Scientologists don't like these experts either. You're in good company.
Andrew,
Is that supposed to be a reply?
Let's try again...
Q. How can I be(come) a member of the TM movement?
Q. What actions do I exhibit that would satisfy anyone's definition of
being part of a cult?
Brian
P.S. It's your turn now ;-)
Brian Milnes
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <362A232E.6109@no_spam.nasw.org>...
>Dan wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 1998 16:31:30 -0500, "Andrew A. Skolnick"
>> <asko...@nasw.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
>>
>> meditating for 25 years and have never been a 'member'. Your
>> statement contains no fact.
>>
>> Dan
>
>You meditate, you say. Is that all you do?
>
>If you want to become a member of the TM Movement, you will have to do a
>lot more. For information on how to become more involved in the
>Movement, visit your nearest TM center. Bring your checkbook or better
>yet cash. You will be helped immediately.
Good to see that Andrew's consistency in quality of reply is continuing
here.
Brian
P.S. Boy, those sci.skeptic guys are sticklers for facts and details, aren't
they?
Brian Milnes
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <362A2638.3D4B@no_spam.nasw.org>...
In the best traditions of investigative journalism, Andrew misreads and/or
misrepresents the post he refers to. Hey, well, if we're stoopid enough to
"fall for" Maharishi's nonsense claims, we won't notice that Andrew wastes
no time in supplying substantive evidence.
Brian
Lawson English
produced by a local TV station news crew of someone hopping, just as they
have always claimed is the case in the beginning stage of Yogic Flying.
You can purchase it from the TM university, or you can ask CNN if they have
any old video footage from when they used to show people hopping on their
Headline Newstrailor.
[I so love people that think that they are experts because they have read a
book that wasn't accurate on a subject when it was written, and is over a
decade old in any case]
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> said:
>On Sat, 17 Oct 1998 21:45:32 -0400, in sci.skeptic, Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
>>Judy Stein wrote in message ...
>>
>>>First, TM isn't a cult.
>>
>>Yes, it is. Not perhaps as destructive to members as other cults, but
still
>>a cult. It has all the requirments: A charismatic leader who can do no
>>wrong; silly claims about impossible things; and most important of all -
>>fleecing money from the gullible cult members in order to line the
pockets
>>of their leader(s).
>>
>>>Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
>>
>>Not according to the laws of physics it ain't.
>
>There's a great pair of pictures in Randi's FlimFlam -- an official TM
>picture supposedly showing someone levitating. Another, more convincing
>picture, but of someone with no TM experience, no gymnastics experience,
>in a lotus position bouncing on a mat, caught in mid bounce, and clearly
>levitating!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
>
>[I so love people that think that they are experts because they have read a
>book that wasn't accurate on a subject when it was written, and is over a
>decade old in any case]
If you are talking about Flim-Flam, I only mentioned the two pictures.
What is inaccurate about them? Are they fake?
Doug
Lawson English
>You meditate, you say. Is that all you do?
>
>If you want to become a member of the TM Movement, you will have to do a
>lot more. For information on how to become more involved in the
>Movement, visit your nearest TM center. Bring your checkbook or better
>yet cash. You will be helped immediately.
Really, so what constitutes membership?
Learning TM? Learning one or more advanced TM techniques? Learning the
TM-Sidhis (Yogic Flying _et alia_) techniques? Having Pancharkarma
treatments at the local Maharishi Ayurveda clinic? Consuming an occassional
Maharishi Ayurveda herbal preparation? Subscribing to the "continuity
program" for the Maharishi Amrit Kalsh herbal preparations? Becoming a TM
teacher? Becoming an MUM professor? Becoming an Panchakarma technician?
Becoming a member of Purusha or Mother Divine (the secular monk/nuns of
TM)?
What?
Define your terms and explain why a specific level of participation
qualifies you for "membership" in the "TM cult."
Lawson English
[Foot Grenade's comments snipt]
>The irrationality of TM apologists would be hilarious if it wasn't so
>tragic. They spend half their time insisting that TM isn't a religion
>and the other half lambasting critics as frightened and jealous bigots
>for attacking their religion.
Is Foot Grenade a TM apologist or an Andrew Skolnick critic? I've never
been certain, myself...
Lawson English
The TM organization has always admitted that only hopping is taking place,
and with one or two minor exceptions, every photograph that *I* have seen
has the caption (or side-bar) "first stage of yogic flying".
The first public presentation that I heard on Yogic FLying was to the True
Believers in 1976 and it was made VERY clear that only hopping was taking
place, although expectations were high that people would still be floating.
The Flim-Flam "expose" makes it sound as though people were trying to say
"these pictures are of people floating." Certainly, at first glance, you're
supposed to think of floating, but the caption explains otherwise
(generally), and you can't even get close to paying money for the course
without learning that people are only hopping. It's been like that since
before I learned the Yogic FLying technique in 1984, and most people from
earlier courses report the same sort of thing: hopping-only was how it was
advertised.
Mr. Foot Grenade
bias is toward Osho.
Judy Stein
har...@ntwebpro.com (Harold L) wrote:
> >The walking-through-walls and invisibility siddhis haven't been
> >taught since the mid-'70s, first.
>
> Why were these teachings abandonned anyway?
Don't know. I suspect they were considered ineffective in some
way.
> I propose as with most cults, religions, and psuedoscience belief
> institutions, the doctorines and teachings are often updated to
> attract more followers. As society evolves and science advances,
> fewer people accept such supernatural claims. If you want to stay in
> business you must diversify.
Four reasons why this could not be the case with regard to these
discarded techniques. First, the "flying" (levitation) technique
is still the centerpiece of the TM-Sidhis program.
Second, the two techniques were jettisoned very early in the
TM-Sidhis program, well before there was enough data to judge
their market appeal (as opposed to their effectiveness).
Third, society of late has appeared to be "evolving" in precisely
the opposite direction, toward greater acceptance of
"supernatural" claims. That's certainly what CSICOP and the
Skeptical Inquirer would have you believe (of course, they have a
significant investment in such concerns; the worse the perceived
threat, the greater the financial support).
Fourth, TM itself has been making progressively more spectacular
claims, not less. (Hmm, this might well be a function of my
third point, market-wise.)
However, just for the record, TM doesn't hold its claims to be
"supernatural." Nor is it a cult, a religion, or a
"pseudoscience belief institution."
And finally, to show your theory is correct, you would have to
rule out the alternative possibility, that TM's offerings have
changed over the years on the basis of findings about their
effectiveness in developing enlightenment, rather than as a
function purely of market forces.
> The widespread cult industry that prevailed in the 70's appears to be
> making a comeback in the 90's as "New Age". Except the new age claims
> are much more vague. They promise intangible and therefore unprovable
> benefits. There are fewer promises of physical miraculous results.
I hadn't noticed that this was the case. Do you have any
evidence for this assertion?
It certainly is not the case for TM (which isn't part of the
"cult industry" anyway). Its primary claim--enlightenment--has
been the same since its inception 40 years ago; and the
subsidiary claims it makes for "physical miraculous results" have
become more radical and more specific, not less.
But again, TM does not consider such results "miraculous."
> Intorudcing TM 2.0 with 90% less fat and no walking through (or into)
> walls.
Nope. Nice theory, but it doesn't fit the facts. I'm sure lack
of correspondence with the facts won't lead you to discard it,
though.
> >Second, no such promises are made by TM. In fact, you have
> >to demonstrate in writing that you understand you haven't been
> >promised anything before you're allowed to take the course.
>
> That's a good disclaimer. That way the students can't take you to
> court when they realize the truth.
It does help protect TM--which is widely assumed to have Deep
Pockets--against frivolous lawsuits.
But "the truth" doesn't have to be "realized"; it's presented
right up front. What's in the disclaimer simply puts it in
writing.
Some people just don't listen, or they hear what they want to
hear. When it's in writing, in the student's own words, it's a
lot more difficult to claim one has been deceived.
Much more importantly, this requirement clarifies for the student
what the course and the practice are *for*, so they don't get
misled and distracted by their own fantasies and can obtain full
value for their money.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
g...@galaxycom.net.nz (George Black) wrote:
> In article <$Mu9sq2Bb...@panix.com>, jst...@panix.com wrote:
>
> >Be warned: skeptopaths are eaten for breakfast here on
> >alt.meditation.transcendental.
>
> Then with all haste haul your backside out of sci.skeptic
No, you've misunderstood. If you're a skeptopath who doesn't
want to be eaten for breakfast (*real* skeptics are in no
danger), then *you* haul *your* backside out of
alt.meditation.transcendental.
And if you'd prefer not to be tempted to venture in, speak to
your fellow skeptopath Andrew Skolnick, who is the individual who
has been crossposting threads from alt.m.t to sci.skeptic.
Judy Stein
Ralph Page <RALPH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote:
<snip>
> poster is as prolific as you or Pete. I deleted what seems
> like hundred of posts between you and Andrew (I think it was
> Andrew you went toe to toe with) not long ago
Andrew and a bunch of his knee-jerk dittoheads from sci.skeptic.
(It was Andrew who started the Sagan threads by quoting from
"Demon-Haunted World" and crossposting it to alt.m.t and
sci.skeptic; and it's thanks to Andrew, via his crossposted
report on the Ig Nobel award to Deepak Chopra, that the topic has
been resurrected.)
and the
> thought of wading through all that was none too appealing.
> If Sagan's name was in the subject line of the thread, I
> will have no trouble.
There are several threads with "Sagan" in the subject heading.
Not all the posts in those threads are about Sagan, and some of
the posts about Sagan are in other threads, but this should help.
Also look for an August exchange between me and Brant (of
sci.skeptic) concerning debunking in general.
I decided to repost here my analysis of Sagan's comments about TM
in "Demon-Haunted World" and the excerpts from the review of
"Billions and Billions." Those two are probably the meatiest.
> > Your assumption that we are just indulging in "vague opinion" is
> > quite mistaken, if typical from a skeptopath. We've already
> > provided lots of examples and analysis, and I don't believe we're
> > obliged to go through them all again just because you happened to
> > miss them the first time around.
>
> I didn't say it was a vague opinion, as I am sure you
> noticed.
You certainly implied it, Ralph. Certainly several of your
sci.skeptic colleagues have inferred it.
> I try to avoid making statements like Foot Grenade made,
> even in this usenet forum where anything goes. It just
> seems inappropriate to slam a third party without properly
> backing it up.
Gee, your sci.skeptic compatriots do it all the time to TM and
TMers. You'll have seen several of those posts quite recently, I
believe, including a couple in response to your own demand for
specifics. Have I missed your criticisms of them?
The fact that you or he may have discussed
> it a couple of months ago is not that relevant. Just my
> opinion of course.
This is a fairly small newsgroup with a lot of regulars who've
been around for some time--forming a collective historical
memory, as it were--so we frequently make references to past
discussions and themes. Folks who weren't around for these
exchanges are more than welcome to ask about the basis for such
references, but it really doesn't behoove them to suggest there
is nothing behind the references but "vague opinion" until they
have good reason to suspect this is in fact the case. You were
way premature on this count.
<snip>
> > The problem was that he was so charismatic and charming and
> > appeared so authoritative and knowledgeable that many folks were
> > seduced into assuming everything he said was pure gold. And he
> > in turn bought into the public's perception of him.
>
> You're right there, he seemed like a really nice guy and, in
> fact, everything I ever heard led me to believe that he was
> pretty rational about the 'paranormal'.
Of course. He was a poster boy for skeptics; he confirmed your
own biases, so naturally he would seem rational to you.
But let me ask you this: Have you ever encountered a skeptical,
scientific type you did *not* consider to be rational about the
paranormal? I find that hard to imagine, frankly.
Your comment is also of interest because it suggests you never
really looked for any informed rebuttals of Sagan's views on the
subject--just what the skeptics are always accusing the New
Age-types of failing to do with their own views.
It's entirely possible to speak in a way that sounds eminently
rational while having one's facts completely bassackwards. In
such a case, what is being debunked is a straw-man version of
"paranormal" claims, not the claims themselves.
Which is not to say there aren't many paranormal claims that cry
out for debunking, or that Sagan didn't do his share of entirely
legitimate debunking. It's just that one can't *assume* all such
debunkings are legitimate simply because *some* of them are.
Judy Stein
"Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> OK, I can't speak for Sagan, but here's a little gem from Randi's
> _Flim-Flam_:
Here's another one from the same book, from my August exchange
with Brant. It deals with the TM claim that crime had gone down
in the town of Fairfield, Iowa, home of Maharishi University of
Management (then Maharishi International University) because of
the high concentration of meditators.
Quoting from my August post:
For example, Randi decides to check on the claim that crime had
declined in Fairfield, Iowa, site of Maharishi International
University, and that the chief of police had put several officers
on part-time duty. He reports:
"The office of Fairfield Chief of Police Miller was only amused
to hear that their crime rate was so low. Indeed, not only was
there no plan to dump officers, but they were hiring
more....Mayor Rasmussen's office could not explain where such
notions...had come from" (p. 100).
Well, er, there's a notable absence here of any definitive
statements to the effect that crime had not decreased in
Fairfield. There's no contradiction of the claim that several
officers had been put on part-time duty (as opposed to "dumped,"
which wasn't the claim).
It may or may not be the case that more officers were being hired
because there was more crime; both the part-time duty and
subsequent hiring of more officers could have had to do with
budgetary considerations (running short one year, getting the
city council to vote a higher budget for the next year, for
instance). Did Randi ask? If so, he doesn't let us in on what
he found out.
Was the chief of police "amused" to hear the crime rate was so
low because it was, in fact, high, or because the TMers had taken
credit for the reduction? Randi doesn't tell us.
That Mayor Rasmussen's office "could not explain where such
notions had come from" might mean nothing more than that the
person Randi spoke to didn't know who the TMers had obtained
their information from.
Randi's report, indeed, is rather carefully phrased to *avoid*
providing any definitive refutations of the claims in question,
as well as failing to consider possible alternative explanations
for the information it *does* provide. And yet he clearly
intends readers to understand that the claims have been debunked.
There are many other vague statements that are designed to
*sound* like refutations but which fall apart on examination;
there are misleading statements, some of which appear to have
been quite deliberate; there is a wealth of straw men (see
"dumped" above, e.g.) and dozens of exaggerations and
distortions. The chapter is also full of factual inaccuracies.
He does nail TM on a few points, but overall it's an extremely
sloppy job, more dependent for its effect on innuendo and
ridicule than solid debunking. The trouble is, this is evident
only to someone who is well informed already about TM (although a
genuinely skeptical individual who read the chapter critically
would see at least some of the sloppiness without knowing
anything about TM).
[Lawson wrote:]
> Randi never considered any of the above as far as I can tell. This is
> traditional with professional skeptics: assume the worst and attack
> whole-heartedly.
Which is directly contrary to Richard Feynman's criteria for the
presentation of scientific research. Granted, Randi doesn't
claim to be a scientific researcher per se, but considering that
he attempts to disprove purportedly pseudoscientific claims, it
seems to me he can be held accountable just on the grounds of
general integrity for *flouting* Feynman's criteria (which
include, among others, the need to provide all reasonable
alternative explanations for one's data and to "lean over
backward" to supply all information that might possibly argue
against one's hypothesis).
Andrew Skolnick, medical news editor for JAMA, is another
prominent skeptic who ignores the criteria. Not surprising,
since he has publicly claimed Randi as his mentor, hailing him as
"St. George" slaying the "dragon of pseudoscience."
But he goes considerably further than Randi. Not only does he
actively *conceal* information that might argue against his
hypothesis, not only does he indulge in very carefully calculated
attempts to mislead, he makes things up out of thin air and is
prone to accuse those who expose his tactics as liars.
Judy Stein
"Andrew A. Skolnick" <askolnick@no_spam.nasw.org> wrote:
> Harold L wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > >Second, no such promises are made by TM. In fact, you have
> > >to demonstrate in writing that you understand you haven't been
> > >promised anything before you're allowed to take the course.
> >
> > That's a good disclaimer. That way the students can't take you to
> > court when they realize the truth.
>
> Precisely. The TM Movement was sued by students who were unhappy being
> bamboozled.
Actually, it was sued by folks who hadn't been paying attention
and had created their own unrealistic expectations. They'd
bamboozled themselves, but they could hardly *sue* themselves for
doing so.
Now, given that Andrew obviously knows about the disclaimer
students are required to write and sign, how come he's still
promoting Sagan's mistaken claim about what TMers are supposedly
"promised"?
Finding the contradictions and inconsistencies among Andrew's
posts is such fun! (And he often even contradicts himself within
the *same* post.)
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@nasw.org> said:
> >The opinion of most authorities on cults? Members of the TM Movement are
> >members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
>
<snip>
> BTW, while we are at it, just what constitutes a member of the TM Movement?
> Am I such a member? Why? Is my son? Is his mom, who no longer practices the
> technique? Is my best friend, who only practices the technique when he is
> exhausted and can't sleep? Are the hundreds of participants in the
> TM-hypertension study recently published in the journal _Hypertension_,
> members of this cult? What about the 11,000 prison inmates in Senegal who
> learned TM by order of the president of the country?
>
> Please define your terms.
Quoting from a post I made back in June:
In article <358C82...@nospamnasw.org>,
"Andrew A. Skolnick" <asko...@nospamnasw.org> wrote:
<snip>
> Still spaced out, Lawson? TMers are not people who learned TM's
> meditation technique. TMers are the people who worship the ground the
> Maharishi levitates over. Doing one or two things in common with a cult
> or religious group does not make that person part of the cult or group.
> The fact that I colored Easter eggs as a kid does not make me a
> Christian.
>
> The term TMer is commonly used to describe those who are working their
> sore-from-bouncing butts off trying to bring about their guru's "Heaven
> on Earth." Those are the people we were talking about.
Huh. Learn something new every day. I and everyone else I know
about use "TMer" to mean "someone who practices TM." Now we find
it means only those who practice TM *and* the TM-Sidhis *and* who
work for the movement.
Oh, yes, and who worship Maharishi.
Now, having conveniently redefined the term from its common usage
for four decades, Andrew can declare, without fear of
contradiction, "TMers worship Maharishi."
(And Andrew criticizes *TMers* for twisting the meanings of
words...)
Judy Stein
ter...@gastro.apana.org.au (Terry Smith) wrote:
> > From: jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein)
> > Date: 16 Oct 1998 21:38:59 -0400
>
> > In article <36240554...@proaxis.com>,
> > "Mr. Foot Grenade" <eas...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> > Hot damn, Judy - you've kicked Andy's silly ass again. He's about as
> > dense as Carl Sagan used to be when he drifted into nonscientific areas.
>
> > With one major difference. Carl Sagan didn't habitually tell lies.
>
> Whereas you do.
Oh? Please document some of them. Please document that I have
*ever* told a lie on this newsgroup.
Or retract and apologize for your statement.
Note that I can document *scores* of lies told by Andrew Skolnick
on this newsgroup. Probably hundreds, in fact.
Judy Stein
several parts. I've tried to cut down on the length as much as
possible by quoting selectively while preserving the context.
You'll note that I've had to correct many errors you made due to
ignorant assumptions. Bearing these corrections in mind, you
might want to go back and review the post of mine you were
responding to.
There were also many examples of your own spurious logic,
compounding those of Sagan. Given that you don't seem to
recognize what logic requires, I don't have much expectation of
convincing you that Sagan's logic was deficient, but readers who
do have some facility with logic will have no difficulty seeing
the problems.
In article <70bh71$brr$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote in message ...
>
> >First, TM isn't a cult.
>
> Yes, it is. Not perhaps as destructive to members as other cults, but still
> a cult. It has all the requirments: A charismatic leader who can do no
> wrong; silly claims about impossible things; and most important of all -
> fleecing money from the gullible cult members in order to line the pockets
> of their leader(s).
Actually, the only one of the "requirements" you mention that is
demonstrable fact is that TM has a charismatic leader.
Some TMers do mistakenly believe MMY can "do no wrong," but many
others are well aware he's perfectly capable of error and has
made quite a few over the years. In fact, though, the notion
that he is incapable of error is contradicted by what he himself
teaches.
"Silly claims about impossible things" is an opinion, not an
established fact.
And there has been not one shred of evidence discovered in the 40
years TM has been around, despite intense scrutiny by tax
officials and the media, that the funds taken in by the TM
organization have ever personally enriched anyone. There is no
evidence to suggest that TM's funds are used for anything but
furthering the goals of the organization, i.e., for TM's programs
and outreach.
Moreover, your definition of the "requirements" of a cult are at
considerable variance with other definitions proposed by "cult
authorities" (which is not surprising since there is *no*
consistent definition of "cult" among these authorities).
> >Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
>
> Not according to the laws of physics it ain't.
Not according to the laws of physics presently known to science, no.
> And there is not ONE TINY ITSY BITSY SMALL LITTLE SHREAD OF
> VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE provided by ANYBODY in the TM, or anybody
> else for that matter, that the laws of physics are wrong or that
> they can break them. A lot of tall tales and vague promises -
> yes; evidence - no.
Well, TM doesn't claim the laws of physics are wrong; it claims
science's current knowledge of them is incomplete.
But you're quite right, TM has no hard evidence that people can
fly--nor does it claim to have any. However, that wasn't my
point; my point was the nature of the claim about the TM-Sidhis
course.
> If you mean "potentially" in a *logical* sense, then it is just
> as "potentially possible" for people to turn into fire-breathing
> dragons or for the world to end this minute.
The difference here is that TM provides a detailed rationale for
the possibility of flying.
> >It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
> >individual will fly within a given time frame.
>
> Oh, I see. And I can turn into a fire-breathing dragon.
OK, let's see your detailed rationale.
<snip>
> I just claim that I *can* do so if I *really* wanted to (and
> there weren't all those bad skeptics around doubting my ability
> to do so and filling me with "negative energy" by asking me to
> actually *do* what I claim is oh-so-possible).
Did I say anything about skeptics filling me with "negative
energy," or is that something you made up? Did I claim I could
fly if I really wanted to, or is that something you made up?
(This is the logic error of "straw man.")
> Surely this is enough evidence for you, if you are convinced by
> what TM says about people flying: After all they wouldn't just
> *lie*, would they, right? Neither would I, right?
*I'm* not convinced people can fly, no, I just don't rule out the
possibility. I *am* convinced MMY believes it's possible.
Perhaps he's deluded, I couldn't say. He does make a pretty
solid case for it, though.
> So, I am more powerful and amazing than the Maharishi Yogi (sp?) himself.
> After all, he is a rather powerless person who only claims he could *fly* if
> he really wanted to, without giving one shread of evidence that this is
> possible. I, on the other hand, *could* turn into a fire breathing dragon
> (with *really* big wings, too, so I could *also* fly!). If he doesn't have
> to produce any evidence, neither do I.
You seem to have missed the point and wandered off into some wild
fantasy of your own. Remember the context: you had said, "Or to
silly cults like TM who claim people can fly." That can be read
two ways: it is *possible* for people to fly; and, people are
flying *now*. To demand evidence is appropriate in the case of
the latter, but not in the case of the former if we're still
*working* on it but haven't achieved it yet.
If someone claimed it will be possible eventually to find a cure
for AIDS, would you demand proof? Of course not. Similarly,
it's a failure of logic to demand proof that it's possible for
people to fly.
Maharishi himself is a different story, since he *has* claimed
that he is currently able to fly. But there are several
excellent reasons why, if he *can* fly, he would not want to give
a demonstration, and I'll go into those if you like.
Now, allow me to give you some background.
The TM-Sidhis are a project, an experiment. Many projects are
undertaken, in science and other areas, for whose objective there
is as yet no evidence. In most cases the participants in such
projects think it's likely the goal will be achieved, or they
wouldn't participate in the first place. It's a catch-22 (a
logical error) to require evidence that the experiment will
succeed before it is completed.
It's important to recognize that despite the hype about flying,
the *purpose* of practicing the TM-Sidhis is not to achieve
supernormal powers but to develop consciousness to enlightenment.
Supernormal powers are said to come with full enlightenment, but
according to yogic theory, once you're enlightened they're no
longer a big deal. (Indeed, it is said that you won't become
fully enlightened until you no longer care about the powers.)
It just happens that Patanjali, the authority on yoga who lived
several centuries BCE, developed or codified a specific program
for developing enlightenment that used as techniques what amounts
to directed reflection on supernormal abilities (that's an
oversimplification, but it'll do for now). According to
Patanjali, the practice of these techniques expands consciousness
regardless of whether any supernormal abilities actually
manifest.
A very rough analogy would be to resistance training for fitness.
One possible exercise is simply to push repeatedly against a
wall. This will progressively strengthen the arm muscles even
though the wall doesn't move or break.
However, if one practices this exercise long enough to build up
really powerful arm muscles, and the wall happens to be
relatively flimsy, eventually one *will* be able to break down
the wall simply by pushing against it.
But one's goal wasn't really to break down the wall; it was to
develop the muscles in one's arms. That the wall collapses is
incidental.
(Please don't get this everyday analogy confused with the
walking-through-walls technique, which is supposed to enable one
to pass through the wall without breaking it.)
Similarly, the way Patanjali's siddhi techniques are said to work
is by repeatedly "pushing" with the mind against what are assumed
to be the limitations imposed on matter by physical law. Yogic
theory holds that the mind is ultimately vastly more powerful
than the body, more powerful than any merely physical law, and
that these apparent limitations are a function of the fact that
we have not developed the full potentials of the mind.
The wall *looks* very solid from the side one is pushing against.
But that's just its appearance. In fact it is quite thin, a
layer of plaster overlying a set of flimsy laths. Once the
muscles have been sufficiently developed, it's easy to push right
through the plaster and break the laths.
In the TM-Sidhis, one is strengthening the powers of the mind by
pushing against what seem to be the most solid of barriers.
(Practicing basic TM first, in terms of the wall analogy, is
equivalent to providing vastly enhanced leverage.) When the mind
has been sufficiently strengthened, it is said, it can push right
through, revealing the inherent flimsiness of the barriers. It's
nice to have those particular barriers down, but the real point
is that the mind has now developed its full potential strength.
(This real-world analogy of the wall should not be taken too
literally; it analogizes an extremely abstract process.
TM-Sidhis practice does not involve exerting great effort with
the mind, nor does it involve anything like deliberately
visualizing oneself with supernormal abilities, or repeating
affirmations like "I *am* going to fly, I *am* going to fly."
Rather, it involves entertaining a faint intention in a very
specific way that is said to exercise or "enliven" the subtle
level of reality where Mind, or Consciousness, is the primary
force in the universe.)
Whether you personally are inclined to think the basic
premise--that the mind is more powerful than matter--is sound is
irrelevant. It's a philosophical issue on which reasonable
people can disagree. Since the barriers have not yet been broken
down, we don't know who's right. To some of us, the premise
seems reasonable enough to spend time experimenting with these
techniques.
And we do have some evidence--mostly subjective and personal, but
also some in terms of objective measurement--that the mind *does*
become stronger as a result of the practice, even though the
barriers have not yet given way. Even if the barriers *never*
break, these signs of improvement in the mind's strength--life
generally becoming easier to deal with, better health, greater
productivity, more positive state of mind, etc.--make the
practice well worth the time and effort.
There are also some pretty extraordinary subjective experiences
reported during the practice, which is another reason we think
there may be something to it.
So it's a win-win situation. That's why we practice the
TM-Sidhis, because we find the results beneficial in our lives.
If we eventually become enlightened, so much the better. The
supernormal powers are a frill, a byproduct (but potentially a
distraction if one doesn't keep one's head on straight).
To the general public who aren't informed about the real purpose,
mechanics, and benefits of the practice, the idea that the
TM-Sidhis are only about developing supernormal powers is an
understandable mistake, which is unfortunately reinforced by the
hype emanating from TM about Yogic Flying and still more
unfortunately compounded by TM's critics, who focus exclusively
on the hype and don't bother to look at what's behind it.
(Sadly, some of TM's critics *do* know what's behind it and
choose to withhold that information.)
(continued in another post)
Judy Stein
In article <70bh71$brr$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote in message ...
> >The only remarks of Sagan I'm aware of concerning TM are those he
> >made in "Demon-Haunted World." They amounted to a few paragraphs
> >and most certainly "exposed" nothing except his own ignorance and
> >arrogance.
>
> OH? I have the book right here (so much for my "ignorance" on the matter).
> The quote is from p. 16 of the soft cover edition.
You appear to be questioning what I just wrote, but it's not
clear exactly what you're questioning.
Let's just review *your* claim about Sagan:
The difference, of course, is that Sagan and many others exposed
MANY specific examples of the spurious logic and misinformation
on part of the TMers, while the TMers who rant about Sagan's
"spurious logic" cannot give one example of it, except by
redefining "spurious logic" to mean "any argument that does not
agree TM works".
I think if you look back at the Sagan quote, you will find it
contains no examples of spurious logic or misinformation on the
part of TMers. What it contains is some rather limp rhetoric
heavily larded with weasel words and phrases, supported by a few
nuggests of what purport to be information but almost all of
which are actually misinformation.
Now let's see if your claim about TMers any more valid.
<snip Sagan quote>
> >Boy, that really puts those TMers in their place, don't it,
> >Avital? Sagan just exposed the hell out of TM, didn't he?
>
> Yup. He sure did. It shows TM for what it really is: a money-making agency
> for its founder, based on people given empty promises "for a fee". Since
> they have a lot of income from members and no outcome except for claming
> that it is "possible" for people to fly with no evidence and claiming that
> it was "thinking in unison" that collapsed the soviet union (or
> whatever), two claims with not one shread of evidence for them,
> no wonder this fraud "Maharishi" raked in $3 billion.
Unfortunately, none of this is objective fact; it's your (and
Sagan's) opinion, and it's grounded in significant ignorance, as
we'll see. Besides which, Sagan hasn't *revealed* anything that
hasn't been public knowledge for a long time, so to claim Sagan
has "exposed" TM is absurd.
The fact is, Sagan has simply rehashed earlier stories by his
fellow skeptics published in the popular media. He's done no
original research, and he hasn't even bothered to check on the
reliability of the secondary (and tertiary and probably
quaternary) sources he drew on.
> >OK, let's have a closer look at what Sagan wrote:
> >
> >> "Perhaps the most successful recent global pseudoscience--by many
> >> criteria, already a religion--is the Hindu doctrine of Transcendental
> >> Meditation (TM).
> >
> >What criteria?
>
> Is *this* the case of "spurious logic" you find?
It's one of many instances of it, yes.
> Obviously Sagan simply means very obvious and simple things: e.g.
> TM has a charismatic leader like many religions leaders,
Well, let's see whether it's obvious or not.
First, many secular organizations have charismatic leaders as
well. What is it about having a charismatic leader that
identifies a group as religious rather than secular?
> a doctrine it claims is true (e.g. that people can fly),
Many purely secular organizations have doctrines they claim are
true as well. Listen to a politician sometime. (And the flying
"doctrine" is only one small part of what TM teaches.)
> a community of believers which hold TM's tenents to be true on faith,
Some tenets are held "on faith," but only because a significant
number of others have been found to be true on the basis of
personal experience. Participation in TM is not based on belief,
unlike most religions.
On the other hand, belief in a set of tenets is frequently a
characteristic of secular organizations (e.g., political parties,
advocacy groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, the Sierra Club, the
American Humanist Association).
> a division of the wolrd to "believers" and "nonbelieves", etc.
TM doesn't make such a distinction.
TM has a lot of other characteristics that are distinctly
atypical of religions as well; I'll go into those if you like.
The point is that whether TM is a religion is a matter of
opinion, not a matter of established fact. And Sagan doesn't
specify the criteria on which he bases his own opinion. That is
hardly scientific, nor does it constitute an element of a logical
argument. The criteria you've inferred are not logical either,
as I've just shown.
> Besides, for this logic to be "spurious", it would help if
> something in Sagan's reasoning or claims *depended* on the fact
> that Sagan *called* it a religion. Nothing in his argument does;
> he just uses the name here.
Irrelevancies are spurious with respect to an argument that is
supposedly based on logic.
You seem to be maintaining that he can say anything he likes
about TM, and whether it's inaccurate or a matter of unfounded
opinion doesn't matter as long as his reasoning or his claims
don't depend on it.
How about if I claimed Sagan was an alcoholic? My argument
doesn't depend on it, nor is it accurate as far as I know. But
it would have the effect of creating a negative impression of
Sagan in the minds of readers that would affect their ability to
evaluate *his* arguments objectively.
So such an inaccurate irrelevancy does play a significant role.
> He does not claim, for example, that TM is bunk becasue
> religions are bunk and TM is a religion.
Sagan's opinion that religions are bunk is well known. I don't
have a copy of the book, but I'll bet it's in there.
> He claims it is bunk becasue it makes silly, unverifiable, and
> outrageious claims that have no evidence.
Which is also why he believes religions are bunk, of course. I'm
afraid you can't de-link his claim that TM is a religion from the
rest of his argument.
> This is a fact - no matter whether you - or Sagan - call TM a
> religion, a cult, or anything else.
Well, actually, no, this isn't a fact. "Silly" is an opinion;
"unverifiable" remains to be seen; "outrageous" is an opinion;
"no evidence," again, remains to be seen (for *some* of its
claims; for others, there's a great deal of evidence).
Nope, no facts there.
> > And on what basis does he claim it is a *Hindu*
> >doctrine? Has he examined what TM teaches, examined what
> >Hinduism teaches, and compared the two? Has he considered TM's
> >response to the charge that it is Hindu doctrine? He doesn't
> >even report that TM maintains it is *not* Hindu doctrine.
>
> TM maintains that people can fly, too.
You're avoiding the question. And your comparison is flawed
logically, because there *is* evidence available that TM is not a
"Hindu doctrine."
> > The soporific homilies of its founder and spiritual
> >> leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi,
> >
> >Weasel phrase, "soporific homilies." As if that were an
> >established fact rather than a matter of opinion.
>
> By this criteria, nobody can ever use *any* adjectives becasue they are
> always "matters of opinion" and not of "fact".
If you're a scientist who is attempting to debunk specific
claims, you should be working with facts and quantities, not
vague subjective personal opinions.
Adjectives, moreover, are *not* always "matters of opinion"
rather than "fact." "Statistically significant," for instance,
is an adjective which is well defined objectively.
If you were to say, "Maharishi's homilies are soporific; in a
controlled study of a statistically significant random sample of
subjects, they put 78% of subjects listening to them to sleep,"
that would mean something, if you then showed how this objective
fact was relevant to your argument. Sagan doesn't even show how
his vague, purely subjective, unquantified characterization is
relevant to his argument.
And "homilies" is meant to trivialize MMY's lectures. One of the
dictionary definitions of "homily" is "an inspirational
catchphrase; also: PLATITUDE."
Sagan's "soporific homilies" is a weasel phrase. It's meant to
predispose the reader to assume Maharishi has nothing to say
worth hearing. This doesn't have anything to do with either
logic or science; using loaded terms to sway the reader is a
tactic favored by yellow journalists and other propagandists.
<snip>
> Similarly, "soporific homilities" are what these homilities are - by the
> standard of most reasonable english speaking people who use the word
> "soporific".
May I see your documentation, please? I gather you have
conducted a study with a randomly selected, statistically
significant number of subjects. Oh, and they should all have
reported getting at least eight hours of sleep each night for the
past week. Ideally, they should have been sleeping in a lab
hooked up to EEG machines so you *know* they're well rested.
Just curiously, have you yourself ever seen one of MMY's
lectures?
> >> can be seen on television.
> >
> >As it happens, MMY was "seen on television" for only a short
> >period on a cable channel in California (and perhaps a few other
> >places--Lawson?).
>
> So Sagan uttered a true statement. It can be seen on television.
Factually accurate, but misleading without the qualification. A
half-truth, in other words, in this media-conscious age.
> >> Seated in the yogi position,
> >
> >(That would be lotus position. There are countless "yogi positions.")
>
> So?
Just a minor inaccuracy showing Sagan's lack of command of the
details of his subject. Virtually every description in the media
I've ever seen of Maharishi that mentions how he sits uses the
correct term. Why couldn't Sagan?
> > his white hair here and there flecked with black,
> >> surrounded by garlands and floral offerings, he has a *look*.
> >
> >Ah, a "look." Objective evidence of...what?
>
> Simple, your willful ignorance notwithstanding. It is evidence
> of the impression the Maharishi Yogi obviously tries to convey -
> of this smart, all-knowing sage who *could* really fly, if he
> *wanted* too. Sagan's son was obviously impressed by this "look".
Sagan didn't say anything about the sort of impression MMY
conveyed to *him*, and he said nothing about his son being
convinced by MMY's "look" that he could fly. So the above is
simply your personal interpretation.
And could you explain to me what evidence Sagan presents that MMY
consciously *tries to convey* this impression? In fact, that's
also something you inferred on a purely subjective basis.
The only "evidence" he's presented of anything at all is his
report that his 4-year-old son thought Maharishi was God.
Sagan has done quite well with his weasel words; he's got you
right where he wanted you, making negative inferences about
Maharishi all over the place without his having had to give you a
shred of evidence.
> It is just as objective as the fact that when I see someone frown I can say
> he looks angry, or when I see someone smile he looks happy. Similalry when
> I - or Sagan - see someone who looks like the Maharishi yogi, we get the
> impression in my previous paragraph.
Except that it's *your* paragraph, not Sagan's. Sagan didn't
define MMY's "look" other than in terms of how his 4-year-old son
responded to it. Are we to take the spontaneous response of a
small child as evidence of anything significant? Is that
somethiing you consider scientific? Whatever does it have to do
with objective fact?
> >> One day while channel surfing we came upon this visage. "You know
> >> who that is?" asked our four-year-old son. "God."
> >
> >Well, there you go. If Sagan's four-year-old son takes a gander
> >at MMY and thinks he's God, obviously MMY is engaged in some
> >really serious pseudoscience. <snort>
>
> No, but this is *not* Sagan's claim or way of reasoning. Sagan's claim here
> is that the Maharishi has a "look", which - despite not being defined
> explicitly - is obviously there.
"Obviously"? Or only subjectively? Quite a few people, as it
happens, think MMY is rather funny-looking (and funny-sounding;
have you ever heard his squeaky little voice and accent?)--a very
*unlikely* sage. It's almost a staple of articles in the press
on TM, in fact. Most people initially find him rather
unimpressive. Sagan's son was an exception.
> The fact that it is not quantifiable is no more evidence it isn't
> there than the fact that I can't quantify how your (or anybody's)
> face looks means they don't look like anything.
Uh, right. But if you're a *scientist* who is "exposing" TM, to
cite your subjective impression that MMY has a "look"--without
even saying *what kind* of "look," let alone quantifying
it--seems at best irrelevant.
As I went on to point out, however, it really isn't irrelevant.
Sagan was making--rather carefully, in fact--a case for a
particular interpretation of MMY and TM with these apparently
irrelevant weasel words.
Now, have you seen anything so far that fulfills what you said
Sagan had done, "expose many examples of spurious logic and
misinformation on the part of TMers"?
Judy Stein
In article <70bh71$brr$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote in message ...
[quoting Sagan]
> > The worldwide TM organization has an estimated valuation of $3 billion.
> >
> >And so...?
>
> See above. Where does this money come from? From the TM followers. Where
> does it go? To the Maharishi's personal funds and projects.
Nope, wrong. It goes into the TM organization for *its* programs
and outreach. And again, you've *inferred* something from
Sagan's words that he does not specify.
What does the
> Maharishi give back to his believers for these $3 billion? *Promises* that
> people *could* fly and baseless claims with no evidence that meditating
> together lowers crime. What does this make the Maharishi? A fraud.
No, actually the funds come mostly from fees paid for services
rendered and products delivered. Many if not most TMers who
avail themselves of the products and services feel they've gotten
full or more than full value for what they paid.
> >> For a fee they promise through meditation to be able to walk you
> >> through walls, to make you invisible, to enable you to fly.
> >
> >Here Sagan has obviously relied on other accounts by skeptics,
> >which themselves were most likely based on TM-Ex materials. He
> >hasn't bothered to verify the skeptics' reports with
> >authoritative sources. He *assumes* the skeptics' reports are
> >themselves authoritative, an assumption not based on objective
> >evidence.
>
> TRANSLATION OF JUDY'S RANT: Sagan hit a sore spot which she
> cannot refute or turn into a word-game about the meaning of
> common English words.
Um, no. The only "sore spot" is that this particular claim Sagan
makes is about 20 years out of date. I just *did* refute it by
pointing out that it's inaccurate.
> Of course, one could go on how Judy uses "weasel words" like
> "obviously", "most likely", and "authoritive", which - as Judy
> told us - are meaningless words since they do not point to
> anything "objective", so they are nothing but "personal opinion".
Well, no, actually there's quite a bit of evidence for the
accuracy of all these terms. I'll go into it if you like.
<snip>
> >The walking-through-walls and invisibility siddhis haven't been
> >taught since the mid-'70s, first.
>
> TRANSLATION: until the cult was firmly established enough to no
> longer need *such* outrageous lies.
Er, no. First, TM (which is not a cult) had been very firmly
established long before the TM-Sidhis program was released in
1976. Second, the two discarded techniques were taught only for
a very brief period (less than a year, I believe) while the
TM-Sidhis course was still in its experimental stages.
Third, we don't know whether the claims were lies, deluded but
sincere claims, or valid claims.
Notice how many unfounded and factually inaccurate assumptions
you've made so far.
> Did the Maharishi use some of his $3 billion to refund the money
> of people who joined TM due to these even more outrageous claims
> of the earlier years? No? thought so.
No, because nobody "joined" TM on the basis of these discarded
claims. If anybody learned TM because of claims about the
TM-Sidhis, it was on the basis of the flying claim, which is, of
course, still made.
And I find it amusing that you consider the discarded claims to
be "even more outrageous" than the claim about flying. I
understand why you have to for the sake of your theory, but it's
a really transparently silly tactic.
> > Second, no such promises are made by TM.
>
> ...any more.
Sagan's book was published in *1996*. TM discarded the
invisibility and walking-through-walls techniques two decades
earlier and had begun to hold public demonstrations of Yogic
Flying (i.e, hopping), saying explicitly that this was all that
had been accomplished, in 1985. Film of hopping has been on
every major television outlet; articles about it have appeared in
a significant proportion of the print media around the world.
How can you justify Sagan's repeating, in the present tense as if
it were current, information that hasn't been valid for 10 and 20
years??
> > In fact, you have to demonstrate in writing that you
> >understand you haven't been promised anything before you're
> >allowed to take the course.
>
> And this is supposed to be proof of TM's *innocence*????
>
> TM is using here the same fraudulent scheme used in so-called
> "pyramid schemes", psychic phone lines, and other frauds: you
> must sign or agree to a disclaimer that the money you send is
> "legally" a free gift, or the psychic phone call "for
> entertainment purposes only".
I see, similar to the disclaimer you must sign before undergoing
surgery, I guess. Or participating in a clinical trial of a new
drug. Right? Results are not guaranteed, and you agree not to
hold the hospital or the researchers liable if your health is not
restored (assuming they performed to accepted standards).
> In all three cases, you *are* promised - if not directly,
> *very* strongly so by implication - that you will get rich, or
> talk to a real psychic, or be able to fly;
No, actually it's made *very* clear before you even get to the
point of writing the disclaimer that you should not expect to be
able to fly simply on the basis of taking the course. It's
pointed out that there have been no documented instances of
flying by TMers.
So Sagan was simply wrong (as are you) because he didn't bother
to check his facts.
> the "paper signing" ritual is just an attept to thwart possile
> lawsuits when the gullible person realizes that you *cannot* make
> money from a pyramid scheme, that there *are* no real psychics,
> and that people *can't* fly.
It does help protect TM against frivolous lawsuits by those who
have a yen to reach into TM's Deep Pockets.
More importantly, it helps ensure that people understand the
*real* purpose of the course and subseqent practice, which is not
to acquire supernormal powers but to expand consciousness to
enlightenment. And this understanding in turn helps ensure that
people get full benefit from the course and practice.
> >> By thinking in unison
> >
> >"Thinking in unison" is a highly inaccurate description of what
> >goes on in TM-Sidhis practice. Again, Sagan hasn't bothered to
> >check to see whether his *assumption* about what the TM-Sidhis
> >entail is correct. But it's part of what he's leading up to.
>
> The point is that whether it is accurate or not according to
> the TMers is not the point. Sagan calls it "thinking in unison";
> the TMers call it "organizing our psychic energies into a
> concentrated form of the good of the universe" - or whatever.
What TMers "do" isn't even that specific. The reason "thinking
in unison" is objectionable is that it conveys the impression of
a bunch of robots mindlessly following orders, sort of like the
Borg--another weasel phrase. And it's yet another indication
that Sagan didn't do his homework.
> The *point* is, that *whether* you call what TMers did
> "thinking in unison" *or* whatever the TMers call it, there IS
> NOT ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE it had *anything* to do with lowering
> crime, or the collapse of the soviet union, or any other world
> event, let alone cause them.
Au contraire, there is a good deal of evidence for the lowering
of crime.
> > they have, they say,
> >> diminished the crime rate in Washington, D.C., and caused the collapse
> >> of the Soviet Union, among other secular miracles. Not one smattering of
> >> real evidence has been offered for any such claims.
> >
> >Here Sagan cites one claim that has been documented (not proved)
>
> "not proven" is right. All that study showed is that *maybe* crime became
> lower in Washington, D.C. at the time the TMers did whatever they did - and
> even *this point* is under dispute.
Um, no, it's not in dispute. The crime figures TM used were
provided by the FBI.
> But this means *absolutly nothing* even if true, becasue the
> claim was that the TMers thing *casued* the decrease in crime.
> However, for every decrease in crime there is an enourmous number
> of events that happened at the same time *except* for the TMers
> praying, or whatever it was they did.
You are apparently not familiar with statistical methodologies
that make it possible to infer causal relationships between
certain correlated sets of data with a high degree of confidence.
Do a little research on this, please, so you're up to speed.
The study wasn't *proof*, but it was quite suggestive; it
certainly constituted "evidence" in the usual sense of the term.
<snip>
> I could explain more about this - what I was *really* doing in the bathroom
> that reduced crime is closely tied to the way I *could* turn myelf into a
> dragon - but you will have to send me money to reach such a level of
> metaphysical understanding. The Maharishi doesn't teach for free, either,
> now does he?
I believe the study is available, free, on request, with all the
methodologies clearly specified. And most of the metaphysical
understanding about the proposed mechanics of the crime-reduction
effect is to be found in various publications available from MUM
Press for a few bucks each.
> >By citing the two together, he implies there is no more evidence
> >for the second than for the first, which is simply incorrect.
>
> I doubt very much Sagan invented this - TM is obviously silly
> enough with its claims that people could fly and meditation
> reduces crime, so there would hardly be any need for him to
> invent any more silliness.
It appears you think I have denied TM ever made those claims.
I'm not sure where you got that idea; I suggest you read what I
wrote more carefully.
The only thing he invented was his assertion that there was no
evidence for the crime reduction claim.
> Can I cite the exact source of this claim? No. But I *do* recall you
> claiming that TM no longer claims this and never said that while Mr.
> Skolnick immeditaelly showed that TM did in fact do so.
Er, no, he didn't. Please see my response to Skolnick. His
assertions about TM are unreliable in the extreme.
And I never denied TM made the claims in question. You've got
something confused, I'm not sure what.
> Therefore, your denials carry little weight, considering the fact
> you were caught lying more than once about the claims TM makes.
No, I have never been "caught lying" about the claims TM makes
for the simple reason that I never lie, so there's nothing to
catch me in.
Andrew Skolnick, in contrast, has been caught in any number of
barefaced lies on this newsgroup and elsewhere, including knowing
lies about *my* having lied. It's his preferred defense, in
fact, when he's caught in a lie. This is very well documented in
the newsgroup archives.
That the evidence exists for crime reduction is easily
verifiable, moreover. There's a whole section on the big DC
study, I believe, on the MUM Web site, along with citations to
other studies about earlier reductions in the DC crime rate in
connection with TM activity.
So allow me to repeat my point: Sagan juxtaposes two claims, one
for which there is zero evidence (TM is responsible for the fall
of the Soviet Union) and one for which there is significant
evidence (that TM lowers the crime rate). He says, "Not one
smattering of real evidence has been offered for any such
claims." Since anyone with the slightest bit of common sense can
figure out that there could *be* no evidence for the first claim,
the reader is led to assume that the same is true for the second
as well.
Sagan creates for himself a tiny bit of maneuvering room (and
indicates he knows there is a good bit of evidence) by saying
there is no "*real* evidence." That way, when all the various
statistical studies on crime reduction are pointed out, he can
say, "Well, I don't consider that *real* evidence," and then
proceed to do a critique of the statistical methodology (assuming
he's expert enough; it's pretty arcane) to make a case that it
isn't conclusive.
But that is not what the general reader will assume he means,
that the statistical evidence can be quibbled with. The general
reader will assume--and is *intended* to assume--that there is no
more evidence for the crime rate claim than for the Soviet Union
claim, that all TM's claims are similarly made in the complete
absence of *any* evidence at all.
That simply is not the case.
It's very hard to see this juxtaposition as anything but
deliberately misleading on Sagan's part.
Judy Stein
> Judy Stein wrote in message ...
> >Nor does TM consider reduction of crime via TM/TM-Sidhis practice
> >to be "miraculous." That's another weasel word. It's one thing
> >to claim, "We do miracles!" and quite another to present a
> >detailed account of how the claimed results are supposedly
> >achieved based on scientific principles
>
> What the TMers "science" is not really science; it is the usual new-age
> metaphsical babble which tends to use the words "quantum mechanics" and
> other catch-phrases a lot,
Well, that, again, is only your opinion. And I'd venture to
guess you have read very little of what's available.
as if they actually knew anything about Quantum
> mechanics or what physics really is like.
Actually, the primary exponent of TM with regard to physics, John
Hagelin, is a very highly credentialed physicist. He has a PhD
in physics from Harvard, worked at CERN and SLAC, has many
publications in mainstream academic physics journals to his
credit, and pioneered along with two non-TM colleagues a highly
successful GUT theory known as Flipped SU (5).
> CALLING it "based on scientific principles" does not make it so, when the
> TMers claims are in violation of the laws and principles of physics - that
> is, the principles of *real* physics that *real* physicists do experiments
> with, not what the TMers *call* physics.
That is, what "real" physicists (other than the several real
physicists who are also TMers) currently think. Quantum
mechanics itself, of course, violated "the laws and principles of
physics" as they were known at the time it was introduced, and
Einstein's relativity theory came as quite a shock to mainstream
physicists. Initially, moreover, there was no evidence for it;
evidence was only subsequently found on the basis of the
predictions made by the theory.
> Therefore, it *is* a claim that TM can work miracles: that it can violate
> the laws of (real) physics.
TM explicitly claims that its principles do *not* violate the
laws of physics. Rather, they are said to take advantage of
aspects of these laws which are not yet known to mainstream
science. You should really have a look at Hagelin's speculative
papers published in the MUM journal Modern Science and Vedic
Science.
After all, if I claim that my ability to turn
> into a red dragon is "based on scientific principles" it doesn't make it
> so - *especially* when I also use *my own definiton* of what "scientific
> principles" are, like the TMers do, now does it?
Coud you present as detailed an account of the principles behind
such a transformation as Hagelin does of TM's claims? You'd
better take a look at the papers before you answer.
<snip>
> > Whether one thinks the account makes
> >scientific sense or the statistics hold up is a different issue.
>
> No, it is the main issue.
Nope, it's not the issue involved with Sagan's "miracles"
terminology. Remember he did not address either of these
questions.
"Miracles" is a weasel word in this context, intended to create a
certain impression without actually having to provide any
evidence for it.
> What determines whether it is a "miracolous claim" or not
> depends on whether it is a claim that is in violation of the
> *real* laws of physics, not on whether or not it violates what
> the TMers *call* "the laws of physics".
If so, the results of Aspect's experiments were "miracles" at the
time the experiments were first performed. But they aren't now,
because we've learned what is involved. Television would have
been a "miracle" to Newton.
I believe it was Arthur Clarke who pointed out that any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
by those who are not familiar with it. But if it's technology,
of course, it *isn't* magic. TM considers its techniques as a
technology of the mind.
<snip>
> >TM does not claim to work miracles; it claims to utilize natural
> >principles.
>
> Only that these "natural principles" are only "natural
> principles" according to *them*, and not according to any
> physicist or serious scientist.
Not *yet*.
<snip>
> > TM sells folk
> >> medicine, runs trading companies, medical clinics and "research"
> >> universities, and has unsuccessfully entered politics.
> >
> >(Hm, I guess Sagan disagrees with Andrew here, since Andrew claims
> >what TM sells is not traditional Ayur-Veda "folk medicine" but
> >something TM invented itself just to make money.)
>
> Again, you are meddling with words here.
No, I was referring to an exceptionally and quite deliberately
disingenuous statement made by Andrew Skolnick in an article on
TM in JAMA some years ago. It's not particularly relevant to the
present context, but I'll go into it if you're interested. (He
refuses to discuss it.)
> Whether TM invented these traditional medicines or not, it is
> irrelevant to the *main point*: TM sells these medicines. These
> medicines do not work. Therefore, TM is selling snake oil.
What evidence do you have that these medicines do not work?
Let's see your documentation, please. There is considerable
evidence, in fact, that they *do* work. And note that Sagan did
not claim they did not work. What he did was to use the weasel
phrase "folk medicine," from which you *inferred* that they did
not work, just as he had intended.
> >Note the weasel use of quotes around "research." MUM *is* a
> >research university.
>
> According to the dictionary defintion, maybe. According to the
> standards of science, no. The "research" done there bears *NO
> RELATION EXCEPT IN NAME* to any REAL research that is done in any
> REAL university. Contrary to what you claim, it does no work that
> is peer reviewed in the real sense of the word. It does no
> "research" that gives repeatable results. It publishes no
> reproducible results. Etc., etc. Not real research.
Oh, my. No, you're *very* thoroughly mistaken about this.
> > Even if one does not consider the hundreds
> >of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies on TM conducted at
> >MUM to be "real" research
>
> NAME ONE.
Well, I'll refer you to the MUM Web site, http://www.mum.edu,
where all the published research on TM is listed. Not everything
listed was published in peer-reviewed journals, but a
considerable percentage of it has been. See also a post from me
in response to Lawson's posting of a list of TM studies.
One of the more recent projects--which got a good deal of media
attention--was a study on the effects of TM on hypertension in
elderly blacks. It was published in the American Heart
Association journal Hypertension.
> Oh, wait: the "peers" that review these "hundreds" of articles
> are fellow TMers, right?
Nope, wrong.
And the journals where these "studies" were published were
> *also* pro-TM journals with an agenda, right?
Nope, wrong again. Here's a short list:
American Journal of Physiology Journal of Mind and Behavior
British Journal of Psychology Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Circulation Journal of Social Behavior and
Clinical and Experimental Personality
Pharmacology and Physiology Journal of the Canadian Medical
Criminal Justice and Behavior Association
Electroencephalography and Journal of the Israel Medical
Clinical Neurophysiology Association (Harefuah)
Experimental Neurology Lancet
Hypertension Perceptual and Motor Skills
International Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine
Neuroscience Science
International Journal of Scientific American
the Addictions Social Science Perspectives Journal
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Conflict Resolution
*Some* of the studies on the MUM lists appeared in the single
journal TM publishes, Modern Science and Vedic Science. But most
appeared in independent journals such as the above.
> > (again an assumption, not an
> >established fact), there is plenty of research on non-TM-related
> >topics that goes on at MUM and which likewise has been published
> >in peer-reviewed journals.
>
> Again, NAME ONE.
Annals of Physics; Nuclear Physics B; Journal of Mathematical
Analysis and Applications; Archives of Biochemistry and
Biophysics; Journal of Biological Chemistry; Molecular and
Cellular Biology; Journal of the National Cancer Institute, to
name just a few.
> And at any rate, if you are using the *non*-TM research in such
> institutions as proof that there is "research" going on there,
> you're case is in *deep* trouble. Obviously Sagan's point is that
> there is *no such thing as TM scientific research*. He is
> correct.
Well, no, in fact he is utterly wrong.
> The fact that there *might* be some research on *non-TM-related*
> topics in such institutions is besides the point! If anything, it
> shows that the TMers *know* that there is no real "TM research"
> and that they must do *some* real research in their institutions
> to justify their name.
No, this is incorrect. There is "real" research at MUM that is
both TM-related and non-TM-related, research that gets published
in independent, peer-reviewed journals on a regular basis.
> > Moreover, MUM researchers routinely get research grants from
> > NIH and other respected scientific institutions, for studying
> > non-TM-related *and* TM-related matters.
>
> So what? TT practitioners, too, get such grants. TT is still bunk. Who is
> doing research is decided not by who gets money, but by who can show
> significant reproducible results about their research subject.
MUM researchers are able to show significant reproducible results
about their research subjects. Actually, though, grants are
usually handed out to those who have already been able to show
reproducible results. That's how the researchers whose paper was
published in Hypertension were able to get a *very* large grant
from NIH for a longer-term study.
And research, by the way, is defined not by its specific results
but by the activity itself. Were you not aware that papers are
published reporting that the researchers were *not* able to
reproduce results?
> All the research in "TM related subjects" showed NO EVIDENCE
> WHATSOEVER to the truth of any of the tenents of TM.
Well, no, that's incorrect as well. I'm afraid you really have
not the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
> People *still* cannot fly, and TM *still* does not lower crime,
People still can't fly, but there's a lot of evidence that TM
does lower crime.
> nor is anybody getting any close to either one of these goals.
And your evidence for this is...?
They might be getting money, but they are not *really* doing any
> research, now are they?
Oh, yes, indeed they are, and have been since the early '70s.
> >> In its oddly charismatic leader,
> >
> >"Oddly"?
>
> Yes.
What does "oddly" mean? That doesn't even make semantic sense.
> >> its promise of community,
> >
> >TM doesn't promise "community," but since "community" is a
> >standard promise of cults, Sagan thought he'd throw it in.
>
> TM does promise community: like in other cults, "the believers" form a
> community with a feeling of brotherhood due to the shared knowledge of "the
> truth" from their "leader", which makes them special as opposed to the
> "non-believers".
Actually the vast majority of TMers do not live in a TM
community; most of them, in fact, have little or no contact with
the organization or even other TMers and couldn't care less about
anything MMY says.
> Of course it does not promise a community on any formal paper,
> but *no* cult does that; it doesn't mean that the feeling of
> community is not one of its strong drawing points of cults in
> general and TM in particular.
No, community happens not to be a drawing point at all with TM
for most people (which is one reason why it can't be considered a
cult).
My only contact with TMers, as it happens, is via this newsgroup.
And most of the time I'm talking to the non-TMers.
See, your problem is you really know nothing whatsoever about TM.
You're just making stuff up off the top of your head.
> >> and the offer of magical powers in exchange for money and
> >> fervent belief,
> >
> >TM does not consider the siddhis "magical."
>
> It still is, what TM "considers" nothwithstanding. It makes claims that
> violate the laws of physics.
It was once claimed that no human being could run a four-minute
mile. I have an old World Book Encyclopedia, c. 1920, which
claims travel to the moon is impossible in principle because
there is no air in space for the rocket to push against.
> > Nor does belief play any role in what *is* offered.
>
> Maybe, but nobody *without* fervent belief in TM claims will ever *take*
> whatever TM offers seriously, now would day?
You do need to take a certain leap of faith to fork over your
money to learn TM in the first place, just as you do with any
self-development program (including a college education). But
there is more hard evidence of TM's benefits than there is for
most such programs, and most people learn TM because they've seen
for themselves what it did for a friend or relative.
But then once they've been practicing for a while, faith per se
is no longer needed because they are experiencing the benefits
themselves.
My point was, however, that belief is not instrumental to the
practice, nor is it required of the student in order to learn.
(In fact, it has been the observation of many TM teachers that
those who are the most skeptical about what TM will do for them
have the best results.)
So once again Sagan was wrong.
> >> it is typical of many pseudosciences marked for sacerdotal export
> >
> >"Sacerdotal: of or relating to priests or a priesthood." Now TM
> >is supposedly exporting a priesthood. Where's the objective
> >evidence, Dr. Sagan?
>
> Sagan obviously simply mean that TM plans even further
> expansion. Evidence? Look at its history.
I don't think anyone disputes that TM plans further expansion.
However, I was questioning the weasel term "sacerdotal," as I
believe you're aware but are unable to address. Want to have
another crack at it?
(continued in another post)
Judy Stein
> Here's a small sampling, peer-reviewed and otherwise, as found at:
Those who glance casually at this list will note that most of the
items in it are *not* studies published in peer-reviewed
journals. Below I've reproduced the list minus the padding--
TM-published research, presentations, dissertations and abstracts
thereof, abstracts published in conference proceedings, research
reviews, theoretical articles, etc.--in order to highlight just
the actual studies published in journals. (It may be that some
of these journals are not peer-reviewed; and quite a few of them
are distinctly minor.) I've included only the citations, not the
descriptions following them.
Also, the question was whether research conducted *at MUM* had
been published; this list may include some research conducted
(probably exclusively by TMers, or sponsored by TM) at other
institutions. But most of the studies were indeed conducted at
MUM.
Notice as well that this list is of *recent* research, mostly
from the 1990s. TM researchers at MUM and elsewhere have been
conducting and publishing research since the early '70s.
What's really needed to respond to Harold's ignorant assertions
is a comprehensive list of research studies performed by MUM
researchers over the years and published in relatively
significant, peer-reviewed independent journals. Such a list
would be distinctly shorter than the massive, heavily padded list
from which Lawson took his sample, but it would clearly show that
TM researchers regularly publish such research.
In the meantime, here's the short list abstracted from that in
Lawson's post, followed by a sampling I compiled of the studies
cited in Keith Wallace's 1993 book "The Physiology of
Consciousness" (MUM Press).
> 431. GLASER, J. L.; BRIND, J. L.; VOGELMAN, J. H.; EISNER , M. J.;
> DILLBECK, M. C.; WALLACE, R. K.; and ORENTREICH, N. Elevated serum
> dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels in practitioners of the
> Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi Program. A version of this
> paper was published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15(4): 327-341,
> 1992.
> 440. INFANTE, J. R.; SAMANIEGO, F.; MARTINEZ, M.; ROLDAN, A.; HORTAS,
> M.; LOPEZ, E.; CASTEJON, J.; POYATOS, R.; PERAN, F.; and GARRIDO, F.
> Circadian rhythm alteration by a mental technique for stress
> reduction. European Journal of Endocrinology (formerly Acta
> Endocrinologica) Supplement 2, Vol. 130, Oslo, Norway, 1994.
> 444. ORME-JOHNSON, D. W., and GELDERLOOS, P. Topographic EEG brain
> mapping during Yogic Flying. International Journal of Neuroscience 38,
> 427-434, 1988.
> 446. CRANSON, R.; GODDARD, P.; ORME-JOHNSON, D.; and SCHUSTER, D. P300
> under conditions of temporal uncertainty and filter attenuation:
> Reduced latency in long-term practitioners of TM. Supplement to
> Psychophysiology 27:4A, August 1990.
>
> 447. TRAVIS, F. T., and ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. EEG coherence and power
> during yogic flying. International Journal of Neuroscience 54: 1-12,
> 1990.
> 451. TRAVIS, F. T. The junction point model: A field model of waking,
> sleeping, and dreaming, relating dream witnessing, the waking/sleeping
> transition, and Transcendental Meditation in terms of a common
> psychophysiologic state. Dreaming 4(2): 91-104, 1994.
> 453. ALEXANDER, C. N.; LANGER, E. J.; NEWMAN, R. I. ; CHANDLER, H. M.;
> and DAVIES, J. L. Transcendental Meditation, mindfulness, and
> longevity: an experimental study with the elderly. Journal of
> Personality and Social Psychology 57(6): 950-964, 1989.
[The above study is one of the more important ones; it received
considerable attention from the media and from health
professionals. Of particular interest is that the second author,
Suzanne Langer, is the primary advocate of the "mindfulness"
technique to which TM was compared. On many measures TM scored
significantly higher than mindfulness. That Langer was willing
to put her name to the study even though her own technique did
not do as well as TM is therefore a measure of its credibility.]
> 456. HARATANI, T., and HENMI, T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation
> (TM) on the mental health of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of
> Industrial Health 32(7): 346, 1990.
> 457. HARATANI, T., and HENMI, T. Effects of Transcendental Meditation
> (TM) on the health behavior of industrial workers. Japanese Journal of
> Public Health 37 (10): 729, 1990.
> 461. CRANSON, R. W.; ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; GACKENBACH, J.; DILLBECK, M.
> C.; JONES, C. H.; and ALEXANDER, C. N. Transcendental Meditation and
> improved performance on intelligence-related measures: A longitudinal
> study. Personality and Individual Differences 12(10): 1105-1116, 1991.
> 463. FERGUSSON, L. C. Field independence and art achievement in
> meditating and nonmeditating college students. Perceptual and Motor
> Skills 75: 1171-1175, 1992.
> 464. FERGUSSON, L. C. Field independence, Transcendental Meditation
> and achievement in college art: A reexamination. Perceptual and Motor
> Skills 77:1104-1106, 1993.
> 471. ROYER, A. The role of the Transcendental Meditation technique in
> promoting smoking cessation: A longitudinal study. Alcoholism
> Treatment Quarterly 11: 219-236, 1994.
> 475. ALEXANDER, C. N.; SWANSON, G. C.; RAINFORTH, M. V.; CARLISLE, T.
> W.; TODD, C. C.; and OATES, R. M. Effects of the Transcendental
> Meditation program on stress reduction, health, and employee
> development: A prospective study in two occupational settings.
> Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal 6: 245-262, 1993.
> 477. ASSIMAKIS, P. D., and DILLBECK, M. C. Time series analysis of
> improved quality of life in Canada: Social change, collective
> consciousness, and the TM-Sidhi program. Psychological Reports 1995
> (In press).
> 481. HATCHARD, G. D.; DEANS, A. J.; CAVANAUGH, K. L.; and
> ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. The Maharishi Effect: A model for social
> improvement: Time series analysis of a phase transition to reduced
> crime in Merseyside metropolitan area. Psychology, Crime, and Law
> (1995, in press). Also presented by invitation to the Annual
> Conference of the British Psychological Society on Criminal and Legal
> Psychology, 1-3 March, 1993, Harrogate, England.
> 483. JEVNING, R.; WALLACE, R. K.; and BEIDEBACH, M. The physiology of
> meditation: A review. A wakeful hypometabolic integrated response.
> Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 16: 415-424, 1992.
> 486. WALTON, K. G., and LEVITSKY, D. A neuroendocrine mechanism for
> the reduction of drug use and addictions by Transcendental Meditation.
> Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 11: 89-117, 1994.
> 487. ALEXANDER, C. N.; ROBINSON, P.; ORME-JOHNSON, D. W.; SCHNEIDER,
> R. H.; and WALTON, K. G. The effects of Transcendental Meditation
> compared to other methods of relaxation in reducing risk factors,
> morbidity, and mortality. Homeostasis 35: 4/5, 243-263, 1994.
To these I'll add a sampling from those cited in Wallace's book,
roughly in date order, and in three general categories. Again,
not all these studies were performed at MUM per se, but many if
not most of them were. Note that it is just a *sampling*; there
are many others.
Physiological studies:
WALLACE RK. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation.
Science 167:1751-1754, 1970.
[This was the pioneering study that first brought TM to the
attention of the scientific community; the two following studies
in collaboration with non-TMer Herbert Benson of Harvard
attracted even more attention. These three, and several others
below, were conducted before MUM was even in existence.]
WALLACE RK, BENSON H, WILSON AF. A wakeful hypometabolic
physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology 221:795-799,
1971.
WALLACE RK, BENSON H. The physiology of meditation. Scientific
American 226(2):84-90, 1972.
ALLISON J. Respiratory changes during Transcendental Meditation.
Lancet 1(7651):833-834, 1970.
BANQUET JP. Spectral analysis of the EEG in meditation.
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 35:143-151,
1973.
BLACKWELL B, ET AL. Effects of Transcendental Meditation on
blood pressure. Psychosomatic Medicine 37(1):86, 1975.
JEVNING R, ET AL. Behavioral alteration of plasma phenylalanine
concentration. Physiology and Behavior 19:611-614, 1977.
JEVNING R, ET AL. Redistribution of blood flow in acute
hypometabolic behavior. American Journal of Physiology
235(4):R89-R92, 1978.
COOPER MJ, AYGEN MM. A relaxation technique in the management of
hypercholesterolemia. Journal of Human Stress 5(4):24-27, 1979.
DILLBECK MC, BRONSON EC. Short-term longitudinal effects of the
Transcendental Meditation technique on EEG power and coherence.
International Journal of Neuroscience 14:147-151, 1981.
FARROW JT, HEBERT JR. Breath suspension during the
Transcendental Meditation technique. Psychosomatic Medicine
44(2):133-153, 1982.
WALLACE RK, ET AL. The effects of the Transcendental Meditation
and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process. International Journal
of Neuroscience 16:58-58, 1982.
WALLACE RK, ET AL. Systolic blood pressure and long-term
practice of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program:
Effects of TM on systolic blood pressure. Psychosomatic Medicine
45(1):41-46, 1983.
WERNER O, ET AL. Long-term endocrinologic changes in subjects
practicing the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhis program.
Psychosomatic Medicine 48(1-2):59-66, 1986.
GLASER JL, ET AL. Elevated serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate
levels in practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) and
TM-Sidhi program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15:327-334,
1986.
ORME-JOHNSON DW. Medical care utilization and the Transcendental
Meditation program. Psychosomatic Medicine 49:493-507, 1987.
[This was another important and widely publicized study showing
that TM practitioners visited doctors and were hospitalized less
frequently than a matched control group; the statistics used were
from a major health insurance company.]
MILLS PJ, ET AL. Beta-adrenergic receptors and sensitivity in
subjects practicing Transcendental Meditation. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research 34(1):29-33, 1990.
Research on Maharishi Ayur-Veda (the "folk medicine" Sagan refers
to):
SCHNEIDER RH, ET AL. Health promotion with a traditional system
of natural health care: Maharishi Ayur-Veda. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality 5(3):1-27, 1990.
PATEL VK, ET AL. Reduction of metastases of Lewis lung carcinoma
by an Ayurvedic food supplement in mice. Nutrition Research
12:51-61, 1990.
GELDERLOOS P, ET AL. Influence of Ayur-Vedic herbal preparation
on age related visual discrimination. International Journal of
Psychosomatics 37(104):25-29, 1990.
PRASAD KN, ET AL. Ayurvedic (Science of Life) agents induce
differentiation in murine neuroblastoma cells in culture.
Neuropharmacology 31:599-607, 1992.
Studies on the "Maharishi Effect" (crime reduction, quality of
life improvement, reduction in international hostilities):
DILLBECK MC, ET AL. Test of a field model of consciousness and
social change: The Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program
and decreased urban crime. Journal of Mind and Behavior
9:457-486, 1988.
DILLBECK MC, ET AL. The Transcendental Meditation program and
crime rate change in a sample of forty-eight cities. Journal of
Crime and Justice 4:25-45, 1981.
ORME-JOHNSON DW, ET AL. International Peace Project in the
Middle East: The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the
Unified Field. Journal of Conflict Resolution 32:776-812, 1988.
[This is a *very* important study on the "Maharishi Effect," the
same effect that is said to reduce crime, here used to measure
variation in the level of international hostilities during a
large meditation gathering. The Journal of Conflict Resolution
is published by Yale's political science department.]
DILLBECK MC, ET AL. Consciousness as a field: The Transcendental
Meditation and TM-Sidhi program and changes in social indicators.
Journal of Mind and Behavior 8(1):67-104, 1987.
GELDERLOOS P, ET AL. Creating world peace through the collective
practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field:
Improved US-Soviet relations. Social Science Perspectives
Journal 2(4):80-94, 1988.
Judy Stein
passage from "Demon-Haunted World" he himself had posted. He
didn't address any of it last time I posted it, either. Must be
he knows how inaccurate the passage was.
In article <36290CB2.2276@no_spam.nasw.org>,
"Andrew A. Skolnick" <asko...@nasw.org> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote:
[Andrew wrote:]
> The opinion of most authorities on cults? Members of the TM Movement are
> members of a religious cult that follows the Maharishi.
Which, for those who are familiar with TM, is an excellent reason
to question the expertise of these "authorities."
These "authorities" can't even define what they *mean* by "cult"
in any consistent manner.
Moreover, as I pointed out elsewhere, most cult "authorities"
have a serious financial and career investment in there being
lots and lots of cults, so their determinations can hardly be
viewed as objective.
> > Second, TM claims *it is potentially possible* for people to fly.
> > It does not claim people are flying *now*, or that any particular
> > individual will fly within a given time frame.
>
> Judy is a liar.
Nope, as usual, Andrew's the liar.
The Maharishi and at least some of his followers have
> gone on record to say that TMers have already levitated. She prefers
> people forget Maharishi's appearance on the Merv Griffin Show in 1978,
> when, in response to the Maharishi claiming that 40,000 students took
> his Yogic flying course, Griffin asked how many had learned to levitate.
> "Thousands!" the Maharishi declared.
Andrew is a professional writer and cannot possibly have missed
the fact that I used the present tense for my statement.
Andrew, this is 1998; Sagan was writing in 1996; Maharishi
appeared on Merv Griffin in 1978, almost 20 years previously.
We know why Sagan cited events of 20 years ago as if they were
still happening today; he simply didn't do his homework.
You, on the other hand, can't use that excuse.
Moreover, as something of an expert on TM yourself, you are well
aware that at that time the term "levitation" was used in TM to
refer to hopping as the "first stage" of levitation.
But the movement did not claim TMers were literally flying
through the air; in fact, your idol Randi notes in "Flim-Flam"
(as you know) that David Orme-Johnson, a TM heavyweight,
explicitly told him no claims were being made even for
*hovering*.
(Apparently disconcerted at receiving this very clear disclaimer,
Randi then attempts to fudge the issue. More about this in an
upcoming post.)
There have been *rumors* of the occasional TMer hovering (we had
one firsthand report from Susan Seifert awhile back right here on
the newsgroup), but this is not an official movement claim, since
it's never been documented.
> > Moreover, as I just pointed out to Lou, the notion that those who
> > fully develop their potential will be able to do things science
> > considers impossible is hardly a "fringe" view, nor is it only
> > the view of fuzzy thinkers.
>
> "Develop their potential" is Judy-speak
Actually it's Idealist-speak.
for "levitation, walking through
> solid walls, becoming invisible, and developing the strength of an
> elephant" -- all claims made by the TM Movement for its TM-Sidhi
> technique.
?? Of course these would be included in "developing one's full
potential." But what the enlightened person will be able to do
is hardly *limited* to these, which is why I used the more
general phrasing. The enlightened person's abilities, it is
said, will extend far beyond any of the specific abilities used
in the TM-Sidhis program.
We all *know* about the claims that were made for the specific
abilities you list already (and the TM-Sidhis program includes
many more). Did you perhaps think you were exposing something I
was attempting to hide?
What a buffoon!
(Note that Andrew was careful to avoid overtly using the present
tense above, since he knows the walking-through-walls and
invisibility techniques haven't been taught for over two
decades. Also note that he was unable to address my point that
the notion of transcending apparent physical limitations is
hardly "fringe" or only the province of scam artists.)
As Andrew is also well aware, the point of *all* TM's techniques
and practices is the development of enlightenment, of which
supernormal powers are merely a byproduct and not a very
important one at that. This notion is, of course, a staple of
the yogic tradition and is implied by the Idealist philosophy
(that matter is emergent from consciousness rather than the
reverse). This philosophy is also known as the Perennial
Philosophy because it is found throughout history and across
cultures.
Judy Stein
In article <70bh71$brr$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Judy Stein wrote in message ...
[quoting Sagan]
> >> As amusing as some of pseudoscience may seem, as confident
> >> as we may be that we would never be so gullible as to be swept up
> >> by such a doctrine,
> >
> >Note that Sagan has not described any doctrine.
>
> How about the claims that by some sort of mysterious force
> people would be able to fly and lower crime while meditating?
Well, it isn't "mysterious" in the TM context; it's clearly
explained. But these claims are not why most people learn TM,
and they form only a small part of what TM teaches. The real
"doctrine" of TM concerns enlightenment and the nature and
mechanics of consciousness, which Sagan doesn't address at all.
Most people, however, learn TM because it's been shown to be a
highly effective stress-reduction technique.
> > we know it's happening
> >> all around us. Transcendental Meditation and Aum Shinrikyo seem to have
> >> attracted a large number of accomplished people,
> >
> >This is perhaps the most seriously biased and thoughtless comment
> >Sagan makes, to equate Aum Shinrikyo, with its deadly poison gas
> >attacks, and TM--with no qualification whatsoever, no indication
> >that there are any significant differences between the two.
>
> There aren't any *relevant* differences in the context of
> Sagan's arguments.
I'm afraid you've just blown your last shred of credibility
big-time.
> He is concerned with cults abilities to *destroy critical thinking*: with
> their ability to make preposterous claims with no evidence and to still
> attract fanatical followers who give their time, money, and dedication to
> the whims of the cult's charismatic leader.
He could have made the same point (accurate or not) by citing,
say, the Hare Krishnas or the Self-Realization Fellowship or any
number of other groups. He chose Aum Shinrikyo in an attempt to
create a kind of guilt-by-association that he must have known was
spurious.
That's really unfortunate. One would like to believe that Sagan,
as ignorant as he was about these topics, at least retained his
personal integrity when discussing them and did not deliberately
attempt to mislead people.
> *This* is the level Sagan comapres these two cults on in the
> previous two pages of "The Demon haunted world". And he is right
> in his claim.
In fact, his claim, even as carefully sanitized by you, is--once
again--a matter of opinion, not established fact.
> >In fact, what Sagan is suggesting is that there is something
> >sinister about TM--that all these accomplished and intelligent
> >people are victims of hypnotic mind control.
>
> Something sinister - yes; "hypnotic mind control" - no (there is no such
> thing, nor does Sagan claim there is).
Doesn't matter whether you call it hypnotic mind control or the
ability to destroy critical thinking. Many people (including
many "cult authorities," the very same ones who claim TM is a
cult) believe the latter is the result of the former, or that
they are synonymous.
> The sinister thing here is the corruption of minds and spirits by a
> charismatic leader.
Which in Aum Shinrikyo led to poison gas attacks on subways
leading to the death of many people, and in TM to...what?
> It is a case of cult behavior, like many others that
> are *very* well documented in literature - read, for example,
> Festinger's classic work "When Profecy fails". The Maharishi does
> not have supernatural powers that enable him to be sinister in a
> mysterious way. He is sinister in the usual way other cult
> leaders are.
I don't believe I suggested he was being portrayed by Sagan as
sinister in a mysterious way. My point is that MMY is by no
stretch of the imagination sinister in the way Aum Shin Rikyo's
leader is, or in the way many if not most cult leaders are.
And notice neither Sagan nor you have presented any evidence
whatsoever for claiming MMY is in any way "sinister." Sagan
cleverly managed to give you that *impression*, and you fell for
his weasel words and inferred what he wanted you to infer.
> >That's the "something else" he refers to.
>
> Indeed so. The truth hurts, I guess.
No, the casual misrepresentation hurts, the unwillingness by a
very prominent and popular spokesperson for science to do even
the most basic research into TM before critiquing it, the
evidence that this spokesperson has used propaganda techniques to
actively mislead readers about a program that a great many people
have found to be of immense personal benefit and that has a
significant body of scientific validation. *That* hurts.
> > That's the assumption he makes
> >and wants the reader to make as well.
>
> ...due to the small fact that he showed TM a). Makes silly claims about
> people flying and its nonexistant ability to lower crime,
He didn't "show" this. In the first place, both these claims are
common knowledge; Sagan merely recycled them. In the second
place, that the claims are silly is *opinion*, not established
fact. In the third place, as noted, there is considerable hard
statistical evidence to show that TM lowers crime.
> b). never produces any evidence for it,
Au contraire. There are several published, peer-reviewed
statistical studies on the crime-reducing effect. As to the
flying claim, evidence for it, obviously, cannot be produced
unless and until TMers start to fly.
c). sells quack medicines and other worthless stuff,
Again, that is an opinion, not an established fact (and there is,
again, published evidence directly to the contrary). Plus which,
Sagan never claimed they were worthless; again that's your
inference on the basis of his weasel words.
> and d). made $3 billion for its founder by just *promising* these empty
> promises to gullible people.
Very, very wrong. In the first place, as noted, the money goes
to the TM organization to fund its programs and outreach. In the
second place, people spend money initially on TM because of the
evidence they have of its effectiveness; then if they spend
additional money thereafter, they do so because of their personal
experience of TM's effectiveness. In other words, they've found
that the initial promises were not empty but quite sound.
Nope, no facts shown here a-tall, a-tall.
> >And *that* is based on the assumption that TM cannot possibly
> >have anything valid to say
>
> No. It is based on the assumption that TM *never did* show
> anything valid to say: it never produced *any* evidence that
> *any* of its claims are worth anything.
But this is simply incorrect. Like Sagan, you have obviously not
bothered to inform yourself. Neither you nor he have anything
more than the *most* superficial idea of what Maharishi teaches,
not to mention what evidence there is for its validity.
> >, even though Sagan obviously doesn't
> >know what TM says, except for what other skeptics who aren't any
> >better informed than he is have said TM says.
>
> Yeah, right. And you don't know my SECRET DOCTRINE on how I can turn into a
> red dragon either, so I guess you are IN NO POSITION to criticize me for
> taking money for people by claiming I can do this...
There is very little in the way of "secret doctrine" in TM, nor
did Sagan need to know any of what is not publicly available to
write something reasonably accurate on TM. All he needed to do
was some basic research. Run-of-the-mill journalists, including
hostile skeptical journalists, have written far more accurate
articles about TM than Sagan's based on what is publicly
available. Sagan, again, simply didn't *bother*.
> It is quite enough to know that TM claimed people can fly and
> that it can lower crime and did not produce one shread of
> evidence to show it,
Incorrect, there is plenty of evidence to show TM lowers crime;
and TM does not claim people *are* flying, so obviously there can
be no evidence.
> but managed to make one person - its leader - very, very rich by
> making such empty promises to people who believed them.
Please provide your evidence that Maharishi is rich, as opposed
to the organization he heads having a lot of money at its
disposal. Please tell us all about the rich man's toys he owns.
Yachts? Racehorses? Antiques? Fancy clothes? Jewelry? Homes
in the country? Private islands in the Caribbean? A
well-stocked wine cellar? Sports cars? A casino? Tell us when
he took his last vacation, where he went, and how long it lasted.
Tell us what he does with his spare time. What are his usual
recreational activities?
You can't? Well, maybe he's saving all that money up for his
retirement. After all, he's only in his 80s...
> >Note that Sagan offers *no* objective evidence we could go check
> >out for ourselves
>
> He does offer quite a lot. It can be checked that TM made $3
> billion for the Maharishi.
For the TM organization, that is. But this is, again, publicly
available data (actually, it's only an estimate made some years
ago by a journalist and repeated ever after as if it were
established fact). That the TM organization has taken in a lot
of money means nothing unless it can be shown that it did not
give equivalent value in return, which is something Sagan does
not address.
It can be checked how many papers were published in research
> journals.
Easily. So why haven't you done so? Why didn't Sagan do so?
> It can be checked whether anybody actually learned to fly by TM
Yup, all you have to do is ask the TM organization. They'll tell
you nobody has.
> or whether it lowered crime rate.
Not so easy to check. There is highly suggestive evidence that
it has done so, but statistical studies of this nature, no matter
who performs them to what end, are very often equivocal.
> It can be checked that the medicines TM sells are worthless.
As noted, Sagan didn't make this claim. But this isn't so easy
to check either. To my knowledge, there have been no studies
demonstrating that TM's Ayurvedic remedies are ineffective, and a
number of published studies indicating that they are.
And these are just a few of the *very* verifiable claims
> Sagan makes.
They aren't so verifiable, a number of them are simply wrong, and
in fact he didn't make many of those you cite. The bottom line
is that practically everything derogatory Sagan says about TM in
what I quoted is nothing more than his personal opinion, either
unsupported by fact or supported by misinformation.
> > that TM is a pseudoscience. Everything he
> >mentions is "evidence" only if one first assumes the conclusion,
> >i.e., that TM's claims cannot be valid.
>
> Not that they *cannot* be. Much simpler: that they are *not* valid, becasue
> they violate the basic laws of physics *and* have no objective evidence
> whatsoever to back them.
Er, in other words, that they cannot be. And once again, as
noted, there is considerable objective evidence for a number of
the claims.
> And this is not something he assumes out of the blue: it is the
> only logical conclusion when one puts together TMs incredible
> claims with its utter failure to show any evidence for them.
That might be a logical conclusion if you had your facts
straight, but you do not, as Sagan did not.
Avital, you've made an extraordinarily poor showing here. Most
of your "defense" of Sagan was made on the basis of a serious
misconception about the nature of the evidence for TM's claims,
i.e., that TM has never published any serious research in
independent, peer-reviewed journals. You could have checked this
*so* easily, but you didn't bother; you just made an assumption,
and now there's egg all over your face. And it's far from the
only incorrect assumption you made.
You've also displayed a pretty remarkable ignorance of the
requirements of logic, some of which I've attempted to point out
to you.
Finally, while you and Sagan emphasize the purported lack of
evidence for TM's claims, both of you (Sagan by implication and
you by inference) make huge numbers of claims about TM for which
you have supplied zero evidence. If that ain't the ultimate
irony! The skeptopath's worst failing is his inability to
perceive his own double standards.
I hope you've learned something about your own (and Sagan's)
fallibility, but I'll not hold my breath, because what's *behind*
that fallibility is your unshakable conviction that you do not
need to consult the facts or employ standard logic to draw
unimpeachably accurate conclusions.
That's a major character flaw, one it seems you share with Sagan.
Lou Minatti
official "Yogic Flying" website:
"In this first stage of Yogic Flying the body lifts off the ground
through a subtle intention and then comes back down. As more and more
coordination is established between mind and body the time spent in the
air becomes longer and longer until the second state is
attained-hovering, and then the third-flying." -
http://www.yogicflying.org/demos.htm
No possible way can that claim be "misinterpreted." They're still making
the absurd claim. They're absolutely shameless. Hey Art! I know you're
reading this newsgroup. Book one of these TM people on your show and
have them give you a demonstration.
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central.
http://www.watchingyou.com/
Ken Hassman
research..."
You are waaaay off base on this one. Most of the research studies I am
aware of were done by highly credible researchers-PhD's, MD's and others
with advanced degrees funded by some major dollars and major grants from
very prestigious organizations and foundations with very stringent
requirements for qualifying and for ongoing funding. You should visit MIU
(now MUM) the NIH, Harvard, etc, and speak with the people doing some of the
research, visit their labs, read their grants and follow them through with
some of their research before you make such a statement.
Just because you said the research doesn't qualify doesn't make it true
and if anyone cares what you write here and what you think they should check
out the research themselves firsthand before they believe either of us. I
have been to MIU, I have had my brainwaves measured, I have spoken with a
number of the researchers, etc.
Ken
Lawson English
>Geesh Brian, the members of Jonestown, Scientology, Aum Shinrikyio, and
>other destructive groups all insist(ed) that they are (were) not members
>of any cult. It should be obvious that the followers of gurus are not
>the best authorities to judge whether they belong to a cult.
>
Gorsh, Andrew, it seems to me that *former* Scientologists are constantly
harping on how they were deceived by their *former* cult. Ditto with
*former* members of "other destructive groups." On the other hand, out of
the 2+ million people that learned TM in this country over the last 40
years, how many have come forward and insisted that TM is/was a destructive
cult?
About 5? 10? 50? 100? 1000? 1 million?
How many, Andrew?
How many cover articles about TM in Time magazine or other major mainstream
journal have touted TM as "the cult of greed and power?"
>You obviously don't like the fact that the great majority of experts who
>study cults consider the TM Movement a cult or cult-like group. Hey, the
>Scientologists don't like these experts either. You're in good company.
Which "vast majority of experts" is this, Andrew? Who says that they are
experts? Who says that the vast majority of such experts say this about TM?
Forgive me for posting a skeptical message on sci.skeptic...
And please name a memorial conference on a field of scientific study
sponsored by Scientology in honor of a deceased researcher into
Scientology's effects that was attended by prominent, non-Scientologist
scientists.
You can't.
1) Scientology *discourages* research on Scientology's effects.
2) No-one in their right mind associates with Scientology unless they are
members.
On the other hand, the memorial conference on Consciosness Research in
honor of Skip Alexander will be held at Maharishi University of Management
this week in Iowa and will be attended by such people as Ellen Langer,
Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Social Psychology Program, Harvard
University, who is NOT, as far as I know, a TMer and never has been. For
that matter, Roger Nelson, Ph.D., Coordinator of Research at the Princeton
Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory, Princeton University, and
Director of the Global Consciousness Project, is generally respected (if
not agreed with) on sci.skeptic, and your attempts to paint TM as a
destructive cult insult him as well because he is also making a
presentation at the conference. Roger is also not a TMer. He's into Zen, I
believe.
See
<http://www.mum.edu/alex_conf/welcome.html>
for more info.
Your continued attempts to make TM look like Scientology, Aum Shinrikyio
and "other destructive cults," only highlights YOUR moral and emotional
problems, which appear to THIS observer to be quite profound.
I mean, *I* am an obsessive-compulsive, but I generally find GOOD things to
obsess about, like practicing classical guitar for 8 hours every day, or
devising new Contact Juggling techniques that turn out to be
ground-breaking cross-training exercises for instrumentalists (lurkers
should ask -it is well worth your while, trust me).
You, on the other hand, only appear to be interested in making obsessive
attacks on minor fringe groups and their members by making grandiose
statements that are obvious lies.
Pathetic, Andrew.
Ken Hassman
You are obviously bitter about something. I haven't been reading this
newsgroup regularly enough to know if you have stated what your background
is or why you take the viewpoint that you do. Have you had a bad experience
of some kind? DO you feel taken or abused in some way by the TM
organization or some other spiritual organization? Why are you so insistent
that I was fleeced when I tell you otherwise? I am highly educated, am an
educator myself, read avidly, have many intelligent friends, TM and
otherwise, with whom I engage in intelligent discourse and am sure I would
know if I was being fleeced. I have long ago decided what is worth it or
not and made the appropriate adjustments. Why should this be of such concern
to you? Please explain how my previous post is evidence that I have been
fleeced when I tell you I have made all my decisions based on my own
personal desires before each and every course I ever attended and when I no
longer desired participation in courses I stopped going to them 8 years ago.
Ken
Avital Pilpel wrote in message <70eiq5>
>Your post, in fact, is good evidence that people *are* being fleeced by TM.
>
>
George DeForest
>> scientific studies on TM conducted at MUM
> where these "studies" were published were *also*
> pro-TM journals with an agenda, right?
Gee...your bias amuses you.
You are *wrong* about
what you have assumed. If you *looked* at:
<http://www.mum.edu/tm_research/tm_charts/welcome.html>
you'd see that everything you demeaningly
put in quotes (above) is actual fact...
"hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies".
Science is objective. It doesnt matter at all whether
the scientist is pro-TM or anti-TM. The studies are valid
on their own merit (or not). You have not even seen them!
> Obviously Sagan's point is that there is *no such thing
> as TM scientific research*. He is correct...
How do YOU know? Because your charismatic science
guru Carl Sagan said so, and he's always right!?
Find out for yourself, "skeptic".
>> Moreover, MUM researchers routinely get research grants
>> from NIH and other respected scientific institutions...
>>
> Who is doing research is decided not by who gets money,
> but by who can show significant reproducible results
> about their research subject.
This is nonsense. The NIH doesn't give money away
unless they are *impressed* by your results, obviously.
Your pro-Sagan agenda can't handle this fact:
we *are* accepted by REAL scientists (at NIH).
> No. It is based on the assumption that TM *never did*
> show anything valid to say: it never produced *any* evidence
> that *any* of its claims are worth anything.
Either you say this out of blind faith of your guru Sagan,
or else you lie. But take a look first at what we *do* prove.
There is so much, you will be "eating crow".
> And this is not something he assumes out of the blue:
> it is the only logical conclusion when one puts together
> TMs incredible claims with its utter failure
> to show any evidence for them.
He lied, you were gullible.
yours truly,
George DeForest
gd...@peakaccess.net
George DeForest
>> ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE it had *anything* to do
>> with lowering crime, or the collapse of the soviet union,
>>
> Harold L <har...@ntwebpro.com> wrote:
> Exactly. There is no evidence of this because
> the TMers were not responsible for these events.
> They were in fact caused by a new movement
> known as the Church of the Fire Breathing Dragons.
> By using our powers of burping aloud in unison we were
> able to lower crime and bring and end to communism...
Very good, now you got it. Since the real secret agenda of
the Maharishi is to make the entire collective consciousness
"coherent" you count as a major coup. You fell for the bait,
burped in unison, and we win! God bless the gullible skeptics.
yours in unison,
George DeForest
gd...@peakaccess.net
George DeForest
>> for people to fly...
> SMALL LITTLE SHREAD OF VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE
> provided by ANYBODY in the TM,
> or anybody else for that matter,
> that the laws of physics are wrong
> or that they can break them.
> A lot of tall tales and vague promises - yes;
> evidence - no.
No one in TM suggests the laws of physics are "wrong"
nor that anyone can "break" them.
The hypothesis, developed by TM physicist
John Hagelin, is that levitation is possible on the
level of quantum gravity. You can buy the videotape
of his lecture, if you wish to skeptically evaluate
his *actual* claims. The TM-sidhi progam is considered
research into consciousness, to test the hypothesis.
As far as "promises" there are no guarantees about
how long it will take for the sidhi-program to show
the kind of demonstation you demand.
This is not a tactic to avoid the skeptics...it is a
mitigating factor, based on incoherence of
present "collective consciousness" of the planet.
Once collective consciousness is coherent enough
to support it, *then* you will see us flying thru the air!
.
There *is* verified evidence of levitation being possible,
however it is older than science itself, and so will not
match "modern" scientific requirements.
I refer you to TM's yogic flying webpage
<http://www.yogicflying.org/history2.htm>
for the Catholic Church's confirmation of
levitating saints of the Middle Ages.
I would assert that the medieval Church fathers
who had to verify "sainthood" were every bit as
"skeptical" as their pre-science allowed...dont
forget they gave us the term "devil's advocate".
Avital Pilpel
Andrew A. Skolnick wrote in message <362A2742.1706@no_spam.nasw.org>...
>> ROTFLMAO.
>>
>> I too would like to become a fire breathing dragon. How can I join
>> this great new movement? Where do I send the check?
>>
Before you send me the check, I wish to warn you that sending the check will
*not* automatically get you in. I have a very strict selection procedure:
Only the select group of people whose checks were *cleared by the bank* are
allowed in.
>> I understand that you are only promising me the possibility of
>> becoming a fire breathing dragon, and that you in no way guarantee any
>> actual results, but I'm willing to join anyway.
>>
>> --HL
<grin>
Thanks, HL...
>
>HL,
>
>Would you be interested in learning how to spin straw into gold? I'm
>selling a sutra that will allow you to do that. Someday.
>
No, no, no, Andrew.
"Would allow you to do that" is WAY too definite.
You should have said that it *might* allow HL to *possibly* spin straw into
gold someday.
Avital Pilpel
Lawson English wrote in message ...
Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> said:
>[a ludicrous amount of junk snipt]
WEASEL WORD ALRET --- WEASEL WORD ALERT --- WEASEL WORD ALERT
Nice going, Judy. This way, you don't actually have to reply to any of the
POINTS I made...
>Your entire article can be summarized thusly:
>There is no TM research that qualifies as "real" research and
>therefore all of TM claims must be wrong.
No. My entire article can be summarized thusly:
People can't fly and thinking together, however you may call it, does not
lower crime. Furthermore, there isn't a shread of evidence to support these
claims. Therefore, TM is bunk and the Maharishi Yogi - who raked $3 billion
from the rubes for promising such silly and impossible things with no
evidence - is a fraud.
>I can't attest to the validity of any of the research cited below, but
>I'd like to point out that it took only a few minutes to track down
>this URL, and I'd expect a "skeptic" to at least *occassionally* check
>the facts for himself before shooting his mouth off.
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The url is: www.TM.org.... Gee, THAT's a credible source...
Avital Pilpel
>I beg to differ re: "fleecing money from the gullible cult members in order
>to line the pockets of their leaders."
>
> As someone involved for the better part of 30 years it is true that I
>spent money on advanced techniques, sidhis and courses. However, I don't
>ever recall being "fleeced" or pressured to hand over my life savings.
And how much money exactly *did* you give the Maharishi? 30 years and many
courses... it would probably be fair to say - correct me if I am wrong -
that you gave him thousands of dollars over the years.
Let's evaluate the results of all these 30 years of teaching and all that
money, shall we?
Are you able to fly now, after there 30 years and thousands (I guess) of
dollars spent?
No? thought so.
I guess you are still merely bouncing, even after all those years of
"advanced techniques". Ok, then. Are you able to hover even one second
longer than the law of gravity allow at the top of your bounce?
No? thought so.
Is crime lowered in your area when you meditate about it, like the Maharishi
claims is possible?
No? thought so.
> Any
>course I ever attended, and there have been many, has been done voluntarily
>and paid for voluntarily by me of my own free will.
Who said you didn't? You were still taken for a ride. You paid money and got
nothing much, least of all did you get any of the amazing promises of
flying, invisibility, etc. TM made.
> I haven't gone to courses for the last 8 years and noone has called me
>during that time to ask why I haven't been going to courses and would I
>simply send some money. Never, ever.
> You are misleading people when you state that people are being
fleeced.