Maharishi Effect
homeseeker
experiments on the Maharishi effect.
John Manning
> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
Good luck.
homeseeker
I found one inquiry to verify the good effects on Fairfield's crime
rate and crop production sreported by the org. What it disclosed was
thatl the data were made up.
Certainly the experiment in Washinton DC should have outside
verification if it is true or not true that the violent crime rate went
down 27%.
John Manning
I was never interested in that stuff. Others may be able to provide you
with something. FWIW, I can only tell you that in all of my 56 years,
I`ve never found anything better than Maharishi`s Transcendental Meditation.
jst...@panix.com
The study used publicly available data on the crime rate. To my
knowledge, however, nobody has analyzed the researchers'
statistical methodology, which would be the only way to "verify"
the results they claimed, i.e., that the drop in the crime rate
during the period of the TM gathering was *caused* by the
gathering.
Peter
"homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
I do not think that anyone outside TMO believe in the MMY Effect. And if the
MMY Effect really exsisted other groups would use it, quite obvious. And if
the TM technique had that capacity, similar groups would use the tech for
sure. And it is strange that meditation societies similar to TM are not
having any result on the collective mind. I agree with the other guy that
the TM tech is in itself terricfic good.
jupiter49
"homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
Hahahahahaha. They'll tell you *whatever* you want to hear. If you are a
naive person, then you're on the hook for about 50 grand over 10 years.
Kiss your family goodbye.
I had a good friend who took part in "scientific studies" at MIU in the
eighties. She was a long time meditator who had a couple of weird things
about her: She didn't get any results, and she died of cancer at a young
age. Other than that, TM worked fine for her.
See, she told me that when she failed to get results they kicked her out of
the "scientific studies". This is absolutely the correct way to conduct
objective "scientific studies" in the TM world.
The other thing was that when I seized this information to make a stink
about it she was mortified and wished she hadn't told me. Despite being
*tooled* by these people she was in such deep denial that she felt compelled
to continue with the fraudulent lifestyle.
It's all bullshit. How's that for plain English?
And I had Maharishi tell me a lie right to my face about what he was doing
with all the money. He lied, and the lie is now known because what he
promised he would do with all the money never happened, and never will
happen. The money is in blind family trusts in India and everybody on this
list either knows it or should know of they are dumb as rocks.
jupiter49
"John Manning" <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:QoKdncVK3MiPT0_e...@giganews.com...
Well, that makes you look pretty stupid.
jst...@panix.com
jupiter49 wrote:
<snip>
> I had a good friend who took part in "scientific studies" at MIU in the
> eighties. She was a long time meditator who had a couple of weird things
> about her: She didn't get any results, and she died of cancer at a young
> age. Other than that, TM worked fine for her.
>
> See, she told me that when she failed to get results they kicked her out of
> the "scientific studies". This is absolutely the correct way to conduct
> objective "scientific studies" in the TM world.
What exactly was the hypothesis of the studies she had been
participating in, do you know?
jst...@panix.com
Peter wrote:
> "homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> > experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
> I do not think that anyone outside TMO believe in the MMY Effect. And if the
> MMY Effect really exsisted other groups would use it, quite obvious.
Well, but they'd have to use TM and the TM Sidhis to obtain the
Maharishi Effect, and then they'd be part of the TMO group, not
"other groups," right?
John Manning
I never really bought into the `Maharishi Effect` as currently
described. But TM is as I said, from my own experience and the many
hundreds whom I instructed. What`s stupid about that?
John Manning
> "homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
>>experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>>
>
>
> Hahahahahaha. They'll tell you *whatever* you want to hear. If you are a
> naive person, then you're on the hook for about 50 grand over 10 years.
> Kiss your family goodbye.
>
> I had a good friend who took part in "scientific studies" at MIU in the
> eighties. She was a long time meditator who had a couple of weird things
> about her: She didn't get any results, and she died of cancer at a young
> age. Other than that, TM worked fine for her.
>
> See, she told me that when she failed to get results they kicked her out of
> the "scientific studies". This is absolutely the correct way to conduct
> objective "scientific studies" in the TM world.
Results on the basis of the methods they used in the study may not have
indicated subtle subjective results not measurable on their equipment.
`Everything` that happens during the actual practise of TM, can not be
measured by mechanical equipment.
And just so you don`t misunderstand my position, I too, have serious
reservations about Maharishi`s activities *apart* from the actual TM
instruction itself.
pundi...@gmail.com
> >
> I never really bought into the `Maharishi Effect` as currently
> described. But TM is as I said, from my own experience and the many
> hundreds whom I instructed. What`s stupid about that?
>
stairway to heaven? That IS the Maharishi Effect. Bring in the clowns!
pundi...@gmail.com
> And just so you don`t misunderstand my position, I too, have serious
> reservations about Maharishi`s activities *apart* from the actual TM
> instruction itself.
>
instruction, or the actual practice of TM for that matter, that you
would be concerned about?
will...@yahoo.com
> I do not think that anyone outside TMO believe in the MMY Effect.
>
Effect". For example, almost all Buddhists and Hindus believe in it,
and lots of Christian and Islamic sects do too.
> And if the MMY Effect really exsisted other groups would use it, quite obvious.
> And if the TM technique had that capacity, similar groups would use the tech for
> sure. And it is strange that meditation societies similar to TM are not
> having any result on the collective mind.
>
How long has it been since you attended a Christian church and observed
the entire congregation raise their hands to the sky in unison or pray
to God to bring peace? Maybe you should attend a service at Lakewood
with Joel Osteen and see for yourself the "Maharishi Effect".
> I agree with the other guy that the TM tech is in
> itself terricfic good.
>
There's plenty of proof that the ME works.
will...@yahoo.com
> What it disclosed was that the data were made up.
>
None of the data was made up. Many of the studies were conducted by
teams not affiliated with the TM org. For example, Herbert Benson of
Harvard University. You'll find all the verification on the results of
experiments on the Maharishi effect here, along with information on the
TM technique, research studies, and other advanced programmes:
Herbert Nenson's Mind/Body Medical Institute:
http://www.mbmi.org/home/
jst...@panix.com
will...@yahoo.com wrote:
> homeseeker wrote:
> > What it disclosed was that the data were made up.
> >
> None of the data was made up. Many of the studies were conducted by
> teams not affiliated with the TM org.
Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
Bhairitu
kumbhs. They just stole the effect and put a brand name on it.
Bhairitu
visited Seattle in the summer of 1978 then you know he made a few
changes from an original stance about religion. When questioned he
merely said the previous stance was a "psychological construct." Seems
he has a few of those in his bag. :)
Peter
<jst...@panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1137941812....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter wrote:
> > "homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> > > experiments on the Maharishi effect.
> >
> > I do not think that anyone outside TMO believe in the MMY Effect. And if
the
> > MMY Effect really exsisted other groups would use it, quite obvious.
>
> Well, but they'd have to use TM and the TM Sidhis to obtain the
> Maharishi Effect, and then they'd be part of the TMO group, not
> "other groups," right?
>
That was my point, a small moneyfixated sectarian cult that uses a relax
technique is hardly a group that God would use to change or save the entire
world. I do not think that MMY himself believe in the MMY effect due to the
finansiel exploitation of his followers.
eki
The most powerful Maharishi effect, or, should we say, Prabhupaada-
effect I've lately experienced in my hometown was when "Hare Krishnas"
had a gathering of some kind a couple of years back in my hometown,
whose atmosphere I'm usually not that fond of. I was biking around
this little town of some 200K inhabitants. The feeling was so
different from what it usually is that I occasionally was wondering
whether I really was in Tampere, the "Manchester (England)" of
Finland. I mean, the streets and houses etc even *looked* somehow
different, like more friendly, or stuff. : 0
pundi...@gmail.com
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
pundi...@gmail.com
> The Maharishi Effect isn't original. It's the same effect as yagyas and
> kumbhs. They just stole the effect and put a brand name on it.
>
Bhairitu
of various lengths. A kumbh is a mass gathering. You are stretching
things a bit to make a direct association, Goober.
jst...@panix.com
eki
skrev:
I *guess* "kumbha" in Kumbha mela refers to the rashi Aquarius.
will...@yahoo.com
> > reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
> >
jst...@panix.com wrote:
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
No, when you look at all the 600 studies you will find many of the
example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent more than
$21 million conducting research on Transcendental Meditation program on
heart disease alone. According to the Maharishi, over 600 scientific
studies at more than 200 independent research institutions in 35
countries during the past 40 years confirm that the technique
works-and brings remarkable benefits to people around the world.
will...@yahoo.com
> If you were a Governor and at the meeting with Governors when Maharishi
> visited Seattle in the summer of 1978 then you know he made a few
> changes from an original stance about religion. When questioned he
> merely said the previous stance was a "psychological construct." Seems
> he has a few of those in his bag. :)
>
claiming over 5,000 TM initiates. When Billy gets back I'll ask him
about this.
jst...@panix.com
Bhairitu
were a Governor.
Master Bates
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138077711.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> According to the Maharishi...the technique...brings remarkable >benefits
to people...
I would agree with the Maharishi in that what the technique brings to the
ever diminishing number of people foolish enough to persist in doing it is
certainly remarkable although I've never heard lunacy referred to as a
benefit before. otto
will...@yahoo.com
> >
> No it isn't. TM is a meditation technique. A yagya is a ritual, a puja
> of various lengths. A kumbh is a mass gathering. You are stretching
> things a bit to make a direct association, Goober.
>
puja of various lengths, enjoyed by mass gathering of groups. You need
to get some smarts, Bharat2 - apparently you can't even define what TM
is, much less a yagyas and a kumbhs.
Vaj
On 1/21/06 6:20 PM, in article
1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
<pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
The ME is pseudoscience. It's was not double-blinded, nor was it duplicated
nor were the actual numbers independently verified. The only thing it is
good for is as a sales pitch for the TMO.
One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that
the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while
simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi
University in Fairfield, Iowa. James Randi checked with the Fairfield Police
Dept, the Iowa Dept of Agriculture, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and found
that the Rabinoff零 data was invented (Randi 1982, 99-108).
In the "famous" Wash. DC study, violent crime actually increased.
If you are interested in a real application of the pacification of negative
tendencies in human populations, I recommend you read _Inner Revolution_ by
Robert Thurman.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
> On 1/21/06 6:20 PM, in article
> 1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> > experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
> The ME is pseudoscience. It's was not double-blinded, nor was it duplicated
> nor were the actual numbers independently verified. The only thing it is
> good for is as a sales pitch for the TMO.
It's a common misconception that a study must be double-blind
to be truly scientific. It depends on the type of study. It's not
at all clear how an ME study could be double-blind.
And most if not all the ME studies used publicly available data, so
those numbers were already "independently verified." What needs
to be examined is the statistical methodology.
Plus which, it's obviously not possible to "duplicate" an ME study
because it measures what happened at a specific time and place.
Such a study could be *replicated*, i.e., conducted at a different
time and place using the same protocols as the original study,
but no independent researchers have been interested in
attempting to do so.
However, the various TM ME studies (at least the ones that have
been made public) have all obtained similar results.
> One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that
> the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents while
> simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi
> University in Fairfield, Iowa. James Randi checked with the Fairfield Police
> Dept, the Iowa Dept of Agriculture, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and found
> that the Rabinoff¹s data was invented (Randi 1982, 99-108).
Randi's report on this study is actually ambiguous, although Rabinoff
did produce, inadvertently or otherwise, at least one bogus study
(concerning the weather during the construction of the domes in
Fairfield).
> In the "famous" Wash. DC study, violent crime actually increased.
No, in fact it decreased substantially. The *murder* rate went up,
but the number of homicides is, of course, only a small percentage
of the total number of violent crimes, and it's subject to "spikes" due
to special circumstances that are not statistically significant with
regard to overall trends.
There's plenty to criticize about the ME studies, but you have to
know a fair amount about how they were conducted and about
statistical methodology to make valid criticisms (not to mention
being well enough informed about the results to at least state
them correctly).
At best, the results of the ME studies are suggestive, but by no
means conclusive. In my opinion it wouldn't be possible to do
a truly conclusive study; there are simply too many variables.
Peter
"Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:BFFBA159.2887%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
>
>
>
> On 1/21/06 6:20 PM, in article
> 1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that
> the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents
while
> simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi
> University in Fairfield, Iowa. James Randi checked with the Fairfield
> Dept, the Iowa Dept of Agriculture, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and
found
>
> In the "famous" Wash. DC study, violent crime actually increased.
>
> If you are interested in a real application of the pacification of
negative
> tendencies in human populations, I recommend you read _Inner Revolution_
by
> Robert Thurman.
>
>
And Thurman is a promoter of Buddhism. which nowadays means alcoholism in
many cases. The roots of TM is a beautiful plant. You need not to convert to
anything but to convert to Vedanta and the teachings of the upanishads. And
that will not cost you anything except a visit to a library or a Book shop.
Vaj as I see it appears as you are trying to lead victims of one fraud to
another fraud.
Vaj
1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
<pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
Hope this is helpful:
Maharishi Effect
by Barry Markovsky
I just discovered this newsgroup yesterday and spent most of the day reading
the various TM-related exchanges that were posted over the last week or so.
(Can anyone tell me what happens to older postings?) I am new to this, so
let me know if I breach norms or otherwise offend.
I know that some subscribers are sick of the exchanges on this topic, but I
suspect that's because the focus often drifts toward the ad hominem and away
from the "sci." mandate implied by the group's name. The following
summarizes a new critique. It consists of around 8 screenfuls of text. I
hope this doesn't constitute bandwith-hogging, but I think some readers will
find this information valuable.
A colleague and I have investigated some issues directly pertaining to the
research on the so-called Maharishi Effect (ME). We focused on the 1983
Jerusalem study because its results were published in a legitimate
journal--the Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR)--in 1988. This is a
specialty journal with a pretty good reputation serving a multi-
disciplinary audience. (I polled 8 political scientists whose ratings
averaged 6.8 on a 10-point prestige scale. The journal is probably better
known in poli. sci. than any other field.) Notably, however, the journal's
editors, referees and readers are not generally qualified to evaluate the
physical theory--Maharishi Technology Unified Field Theory--that is the
alleged basis of the ME predictions. The article was published there
because, as you probably know already, (1) the theory purports to reduce
conflicts and to have social, political, economic, as well as other
implications, (2) various social indicators seemed to bear out those
implications, and (3) reviewers could find no major flaws in the research
design or statistical methods.
To recap briefly, varying numbers of meditators showed up in Jerusalem for
61 days in Aug. and Sept. 1983. During and after that time researchers
gathered data on quality of life, Lebanon war intensity, crime, auto
accidents, and fires. Some of the measures were derived from subjective
ratings of newspaper accounts. Researchers argue that collective meditation
causes changes in a fundamental, unified physical field, and that those
changes radiate into society and affect all aspects of society for the
better. Analyses showed a statistically significant correspondence in the
time series relating numbers of meditators to positive social effects. In
1990 JCR published two critiques, to which MIU authors responded. In my
opinion, some issues were satisfactorily addressed, some were not.
My colleague and I took a different tack and found problems in the theory,
the research design, and the statistical analyses that were not identified
previously, and further amplified issues that others touched upon. Here I'll
briefly note the types of problems we discussed. I should mention that we
submitted our analysis to JCR. It received four reviews, three of which
constituted the most positive set of reviews I have ever received for any
manuscript I've ever published, or any grant proposal I've ever had funded.
The fourth was from the MIU researchers-- 15 pages single-spaced, the sort
of rejoinder that JCR would have to print if they published our critique.
The editor rejected our paper on two grounds: the journal did not want to
publish the Maharishi theory in such an extended form, and the MIU
researchers' response would prevent many readers from reaching a clear-cut
judgment. We have since revised the paper, keeping much of the critical
analysis but placing it within the context of some broader questions: When
should heterodox theories and research be published? When should they be
conferred scientific legitimacy?
It is under review at a sociology journal, and an abbreviated version will
be presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociology Association in
Washington, D.C. (!) in August. Our paper sought to raise doubts about the
conclusions of the Jerusalem study, first by pointing out critical
ambiguities and logical gaps in the theory. If the theory manifests such
problems, then empirical measures cannot be said to support it. Many terms
in the theory are offered without any definition. This makes it virtually
impossible for outsiders (and, possibly even insiders) to know what the
terms mean, or how to go about operationalizing them. The theory is grounded
in conjectures from quantum physics for which experimental evidence is not
yet available, and is silent on the complex hierarchy of mechanisms that
link the micro-level quantum phenomena to the macro levels of social,
political, economic, and other phenomena. In short, terminology is obscure
and logical integrity is poor. The essence of the researchers' response to
these sorts of problems was that no theory is perfect, all language is
ambiguous, and their theory is pretty darned well- constructed by social
science standards. The problem, of course, is that most social scientific
theories do not make paranormal claims.
Even if the theory is semantically and logically incoherent, however, the
correlation of meditation group size with social indicators is a phenomenon
in need of explaining. Even though the Maharishi theory is flawed, if it is
the only explanation for the phenomena, it would have to be accorded some
merit. I don't know whether or not MIU researchers were aware of this, but
if they wanted to choose a sophisticated statistical technique and research
design that would proffer a Maharishi Effect when in fact no such effect
actually existed, they probably could have done no better than to use a
time-series analysis with an unconstrained independent variable. The crux is
that (1) the failure to randomize daily meditation group sizes, (2) the
failure to control for some obvious historical events, and (3) the openness
of their time-series methods to ex post facto explorations, all combine to
render the study's conclusions highly provisional at best. Moreover, every
other ME study I know of using social indicators uses similar methods that
are subject to the same sorts of problems.
Regarding (1), the failure to randomize, the authors claim that ethical
considerations prevent them from imposing randomization. Artificially
reducing the meditation group size on a given day would cause human
suffering, they claim. Convenient. There are many ways to respond to this,
beyond the obvious one that it assumes as true that which the research
program seeks to demonstrate. One could say that performing even one true
experiment with appropriate blinds and randomization would convince many
skeptics and policy-makers to fund more research and standing meditation
groups. In the long-run, more lives would be saved and suffering reduced by
one good study than by 20 large, complex, but ill-designed projects.
Alternatively, one could say that their ideology (religion, ethic, or
whatever) has intruded in such a way as to severely weaken the scientific
merits of their research, and to place their objectivity at peril
. Regarding (2), historical events, the researchers statistically controlled
for weekend effects, several Jewish holidays, and some other factors
occurring during the 61 days of the study. They did not control for several
other Jewish holidays, and a number of major political and military events
that took place during the study period. The problem-- which the authors
recognize--is that things like weekends and holidays can affect both the
number of meditators that show up on a given day and the social indicators
presumed to be affected by the meditators (quality of life, auto accidents,
war intensity, fires, etc.). That produces spurious correlation. It would
not have been a problem if the numbers of meditators were randomized. Since
it was not, it is necessary to control for all variables that may produce
the spurious correlates--a virtually impossible task. In response to our
identifying the obvious variables (e.g., the other Jewish holidays), the MIU
researchers said that it was up to us to demonstrate their relevance, not
them. Unacceptable. They are the ones making the claim which, if true, would
turn most physical, biological and social sciences on their heads. They are
responsible for ruling out (as opposed to merely dismissing) mundane
alternative explanations when they are offered.
Regarding (3), the researchers filing their social indicators with an
independent review board prior to the study is largely beside the point.
Their report does not mention filing in advance crucial details of the
statistical analysis, allowing for exploratory analysis to be portrayed as
confirmatory. For instance, any positive lag effects (correlations between
group size and social indicators that were delayed by one or more days) were
taken as confirming the hypothesis. In fact, time-series methods are
notorious for producing false positive results when a significant
relationship at *any* lag is counted as supporting the hypothesis. There are
other more technical issues that make time-series methods manipulable--which
is why I would like to get those data and see how well-behaved they really
are. I have been trying for nearly half a year to get the data from the MIU
researchers, to no avail as yet.
Any comments? Suggestions? As a whole, my field (sociology) tends to not be
terribly concerned with theoretical rigor and non-relativist approaches to
the sociology of science, so I can't be too optimistic about our paper being
published in a major journal--but we're giving it a shot. Finally, for those
who have not yet seen the report, the 1993 Washington D.C. study employed
the same types of procedures and analyses as those in the Jerusalem study.
Barry Markovsky / Dept. of Sociology / U. of Iowa / Iowa City, IA 52242 Ph:
319.335.2490 Fax: 319.335.2509 E-MAIL: barry-m...@uiowa.edu
jst...@panix.com
Peter wrote:
> "Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:BFFBA159.2887%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
> > If you are interested in a real application of the pacification of negative
> > tendencies in human populations, I recommend you read _Inner Revolution_ by
> > Robert Thurman.
>
> And Thurman is a promoter of Buddhism. which nowadays means alcoholism in
> many cases.
Huh?? What's the connection between Buddhism and alcoholism?
Vaj
"Social Action at a Distance? Evaluating Heterodox Theories," by Evan M.
Fales & Barry Markovsky, Published in Social Forces 76. 1997. 511-525.
Social Forces is a renowned journal of social research highlighting
sociological inquiry but also exploring realms shared with social
psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Each
issue usually includes 11 to 14 articles, 25 to 30 full book reviews, and 20
to 30 "take-note" reviews. A survey of the department heads of twenty top
graduate programs in sociology ranked Social Forces in the top three among
all journals in which they want to see members of their staff publish.
Social Forces is widely circulated in the United States and in more than 95
foreign countries.
Vaj
On 1/24/06 11:05 AM, in article BFFBBA8D.2892%vajra...@not-shunyata.org,
"Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote:
> You may also enjoy:
>
> "Social Action at a Distance? Evaluating Heterodox Theories," by Evan M.
> Fales & Barry Markovsky, Published in Social Forces 76. 1997. 511-525.
Evaluating Heterodox Theories*
Evan Fales and Barry Markovsky
The University of Iowa
Abstract
Active and heterogeneous disciplines constantly spawn new theories and
theoretical variants. By definition, each such offering is heterodox to the
degree that its veracity would diminish accepted theories. Most often
heterodox theories are dismissed out of hand for non-rational reasons, e.g.,
they just seem too bizarre. Most of the time, too, rational analysis
supports such rejection. Of course, many important theories in science once
seemed bizarre but later were accepted as evidence accumulated for them and
against received views. The lag between a premature rejection and ultimate
acceptance is an inefficiency built into the theory evaluation process. Is
there a way to reduce this inefficiency? Through examining a heterodox
sociological exemplar, we discuss the standards to which such theories
should be held in order to deserve (1) hearings in their relevant
disciplines, (2) serious attention, and (3) assignment of a high likelihood
of being true.
In every scientific discipline there arise from time to time challenges to
"mainstream thinking" that appeal to heterodox theoretical frameworks or
observational claims, or both. How should such challenges be treated? On the
one hand, novelty is the lever of progress, opening to view new
possibilities. On the other hand, no discipline can afford to devote serious
attention to every unorthodox notion that comes over the horizon. This
problem is an especially sensitive one for sociology, given the complexity
and multi-level nature of the phenomena we study, and our correspondingly
rudimentary understanding of them.
It is not our purpose to say how heterodox theories are in fact produced or
received by scientific disciplines. Instead, we address normative issues:
(1) the standards to which a heterodox theory should be held in order to
merit a hearing; (2) the criteria it must satisfy to merit serious attention
within a discipline; and (3) methods for determining its likelihood of being
true. We provide general criteria for theory evaluation, then discuss
special problems of, and guidelines for, the heterodox. Our thesis is
illustrated by an analysis of a published report claiming that people
practicing Transcendental Meditation (TM) at one geographic location have
immediate beneficial effects on social indicators at distant locations.
Evaluating Theories
Scientific theories (henceforward "theories") consist of structured sets of
claims, subject to evaluation via objective criteria (Cohen 1989; Markovsky
1994, 1996). These criteria bear upon a theoryąs internal structure, its
standing vis-ŕ-vis prior theories, and its relationship to the empirical
world.
Theory Structure
Theoretical arguments consist of statements that consist of terms. Because
scientific theories offer unique, non-intuitive ways of understanding the
world, they frequently employ terms with unfamiliar meanings. To be
communicable, however, all terms must be understood in the same way by
members of the intended audience. This requires a hierarchical conceptual
system. At its base are undefined or primitive terms whose meanings are
shared by the theorist and audience. Primitive terms are crafted into
combinations which compose definitions or indicate correct usage for some
defined terms. In turn, higher-order concepts are conveyed by definitions
that include primitives and/or terms previously defined. A parsimonious
conceptual system imparts clear meanings to just those terms needed to
express the theoryąs statements.
A theory may be unimpeachable formally, but if meanings of terms are
unclear, deriving and interpreting predictions becomes a haphazard affair. A
theory purporting to have scientific credentials must be articulated with
sufficient precision and specificity that the contents of its claims can be
linked to empirical referents and procedures for testing. That is, it must
present a sufficiently precise picture of the constituents and causal
processes of some natural domain that one can construct procedures for
detecting and measuring the properties of those constituents. Those
procedures also will employ causal knowledge concerning the ways that
measuring devices or empirical phenomena should be influenced by the
mechanisms under investigation.
Vagueness about a theoryąs empirical referents or how they interact with
previously understood parts or our world will undermine any attempt to claim
that certain phenomena provide evidence for (or against) that theory. For to
say that some observed phenomenon measures, or is sensitive to, the presence
of some underlying mechanism presupposes some idea of how that mechanism
behaves‹and specifically, how it can be expected to behave in the conditions
under which the observation was made.
Even if all its terms are well-defined, a theory still can be toppled by a
single logical flaw. If one claims empirical confirmation for a hypothesis
derived from a theory, but logical analysis finds that the statement is the
product of an invalid argument, then no longer can the theory justify the
prediction, connect to the hypothesis, or benefit from the test results.
Confirmation Issues
There is no fully agreed-upon metric for theory confirmation. However, a
Bayesian framework captures several universal scientific values: For given
levels of empirical evidence and prior knowledge, a theoryąs confirmation is
greater to the extent that (1) it is compelling in view of prior knowledge;
(2) the datum whose evidential value is to be assessed is made probable by
theory and prior knowledge; and (3) the datum is not probable relative to
alternative hypotheses and prior knowledge.[1] Even without precise measures
of these components, Bayes' Theorem permits ceteris paribus assessments of
relative confirmation across theories. So with all else approximately equal
between Theories A and B, if A explains the evidence better than B, then A
has the higher confirmation status of the two. Furthermore, when all three
criteria favor B over A, no ceteris paribus provision is needed: B will
always have the higher confirmation status.
Special Considerations for the Heterodox
Even if analysis reveals terminological ambiguities or questionable logic,
publication still may be warranted if a theory is the best in its class.
However, journals have limited space and cannot print every such effort, so
the decision process becomes more complicated. Should an exciting, new, but
untested theory have priority over a relatively workaday confirmation of a
well-established formulation? What of the heterodox theory that comes
bolstered by evidence, but flies in the face of established knowledge?
There are good reasons to publish heterodox work. First, it is difficult to
justify rejecting a submission on grounds that it is heterodox when
otherwise it satisfies normal standards. Second, heterodox views, if put
forward with some competence, deserve a hearing if only because sometimes
one of them turns out to be right and makes a major advance. This mandates a
policy of relative tolerance in publication decisions. The low prior
probability of a theory should not contribute, at least in a direct way, to
its being denied a hearing.
On the other hand, there are good reasons to subject heterodox viewpoints to
higher than normal standards: A corollary of Bayesą theorem suggests that
data providing significant and exclusive support for a very improbable
theory deserve especially cautious and careful scrutiny[2] Whatever evidence
we have for the improbability of a heterodox theory is, a fortiori, evidence
for the illegitimacy of data purportedly favoring that theory. The case
against the heterodox is strongest when a competing hypothesis can be
established.
Is it right, however, that orthodoxy must supply a detailed rebuttal of all
the data in order to deflect every heterodox challenge? It depends. For
instance, if "all the data" are ten similarly flawed experiments, then
refuting one of them refutes the other nine. Or if the claimant asserts that
one study supplies especially critical support, then the identification of
flaws in that study provides an equally critical falsification. In fact, it
is sufficient that a well-entrenched position offer plausible alternative
explanations for the challenging data. The burden of refuting those
explanations lies with the proponents of the heterodox challenge.[3]
The Theory Behind the "Maharishi Effect"
To illustrate our thesis, we examine a study that was organized by
researchers affiliated with the Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement
founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Orme-Johnson, Alexander, Davies, Chandler
and Larimore (1988, henceforward O88) purportedly confirmed a theory
asserting that variations in the number of TM-Sidhis‹advanced TM
practitioners‹in a given location cause measurable variations in social
phenomena elsewhere through the operation of a "unified field." The research
was conducted in East Jerusalem and employed social indicators from
Jerusalem, Israel, and Lebanon. Meditatorsą participation was voluntary and
self-selected, their numbers varying from 65 - 241 between Aug. 1 - Sept.
30, 1983. The investigators predicted and found that meditation group size
correlated negatively with crime rates, automobile accidents, and fires in
Jerusalem; positively with stock market prices and a national mood indicator
in Israel; and negatively with war intensity and war fatalities in Lebanon.
Researchers, spokespersons, and politicians affiliated with the TM movement
claim that this so-called "Maharishi Effect" (ME) is now scientifically
proven through rigorous empirical research, replicated numerous times, and
reported in peer-reviewed journals. Newspaper accounts, promotional
materials, subsequent research reports, and our own communications with TM
researchers, representatives, followers and defectors all indicate that,
perhaps more than any other, the article we shall discuss provides a special
source of pride, vindication, and scientific legitimation for all affiliated
with the movement. In the sub-section to follow we examine the coherence of
the theory behind the ME and its standing vis-ŕ-vis prior theories.
Following that we address research-related issues, noting methodological
loopholes and alternative explanations.
The Theory
O88 devoted considerable space to the Maharishi Effect theory (MT). Its
central ideas come from Maharishiąs theory of consciousness, developed
further by physicist John Hagelin (1987, 1989).[4] Following are O88ąs core
argument and key terms, with numbers added for subsequent reference.
[1] collective consciousness is the wholeness of consciousness of the group,
that is more than the sum of the consciousnesses of all individuals
composing that group. [p.778]
[2] [The theory] posits a unified field of "pure consciousness" as the basis
of the diverse activities of all individual minds. All processes of thought
and perception are viewed as fluctuations or qualified expressions of this
underlying, unqualified, least-excited state of consciousness. Maharishi
likens the individual mind transcending its more active levels and
experiencing its basis in pure consciousness to a localized wave settling to
become the silent, unbounded surface of the ocean. Such experiences are said
to create nonlocal, fieldlike effects of order and coherence in the
environment... . [p.778-9]
[3] nonlocal effects could be mediated through the agency of the unified
quantum field due to the intrinsically nonlocal structure of space-time at
this scale. [p.784]
[4] A potential explanation for the apparent propagation of such coherent
effects may lie, however, at the ultimate scale of superunification, the
Planck scale of 10-33 cm and 10-44 sec, where the fundamental forces and
matter fields are said to become fully unified... [p.784]
[5] the localized conscious awareness of the individual becomes
experientially connected back to pure consciousness, the unified source of
order and intelligence at its base, thus increasing coherence, reducing
stress, and accelerating development in the larger society. [p.784]
TM thus is assumed to permit the individual to experience his/her mindsą
"basis in pure consciousness," which is embedded in the "unified quantum
field" at extremely small scales [4].[5] Individual and environment are
linked by this field [3], and so the consciousnesses of meditators cause
"nonlocal effects" [2] or actions-at-a-distance. Meditators acting in
concert create, it is claimed, a greater wave of coherence in the unified
quantum field than could be achieved by meditators acting separately. The ME
influences anyone in the fieldąs reach [5], creating in them TM-like
coherence. The affected population is , where N1 is the number of meditators
in the population, N2 is the TM-Sidhi group size, a and b are approximately
100, and N2 > 100.
Theory Analysis
The theory receives low marks for meaningfulness. Key terms are undefined or
only roughly characterized using other complex, undefined terms or
metaphors. "Planck scale" and "unified quantum field" are defined in
physics, but the meanings of many crucial expressions are not so clear,
including "consciousness," "collective consciousness" (CC), "pure
consciousness," and "experientially connected." Consider CC, defined loosely
in [1]. First, it relies on another undefined term (consciousness), the
meaning of which is not self-evident. Second, the expression "the wholeness
of" is vacuous. Third, identifying what CC is more than still does not tell
the reader what it is. Linking CC to "pure consciousness" does not help
either, for the latter is characterized through an avalanche of still more
vague esoterica. Without clear definitions, the authors must rely on
metaphors‹an ocean surface, a laser, radio signals‹all of which break down.
Unlike the ocean surface, the laser and radio signals, CC is, respectively,
non-material, omni-directional, and in violation of the inverse-square law
of signal strength [p.785].
To evaluate the plausibility of the argument, readers (and journal referees)
would need solid grounding in contemporary physics. We consulted several
nuclear and particle physicists and learned that detailed experimental
evidence is lacking for Planck scale phenomena. Also, a number of unified
theories compatible with the existing experimental constraints have been
considered in this highly speculative area (Davies and Brown 1988).[6]
Moreover, physicists examining purported links to MT find them highly
dubious (e.g., Stenger 1990; Pagels 1986). Thus, although O88 give the
impression that their assumptions are well-grounded, the soundness of MTąs
quantum field connections is an open question at best.
Though more rigorous than the rest of the theory, the ME equation also has
problems. First, no rationale is offered for its thresholds. The cut-offs of
100 are arbitrary, and the functional discontinuity they entail produces a
rather awkward behavioral model. Second, why is the measurement unit number
of people rather than, say, physical distance? The implication is
paradoxical. Assume there is a 100-person TM-Sidhi group in downtown Chicago
and another in rural Fairfield, Iowa. Ignoring for this example the smaller
effect of non-TM-Sidhi meditators, ME = 1,000,000 for both groups. This
means that the effect would have a radius of possibly a couple of miles for
the Chicago group, but more than 50 times that distance for the other group.
Chicagoąs unified field then would somehow have to "know" that it is not
supposed to affect people if they happen to be more than 27 (or however
many) blocks from the meditation group, and Fairfieldąs unified field would
have to realize that it must keep going (and going) to affect its quota of
citizens. Although O88 claim many things for their unified field, this level
of sentience is not one of them.[7]
Theory Context
One component of Bayesą theorem pertains to theoretical contexts‹the
likelihood that the theory is correct in view of its consistency with, and
plausibility relative to, prior knowledge. In statements such as [3] above,
O88 imply that MT is consistent with the theories of contemporary physics.
Indeed, Hagelin (1987, 1989) argues first that the identification of the
mental with the physical is plausible within the framework of quantum
mechanics and, second, that this identification‹and a fully worked-out
theory of mind/matter that anticipates contemporary unified-field
theories‹is found in the oldest sacred Hindu texts, the Vedas.
Hagelinąs case rests on three pillars: (1) supernormal phenomena ("sidhis"),
such as the ME, levitation and invisibility, have no other natural
explanation; (2) parallels between an esoteric theory of consciousness and
quantum mechanics; and (3) parallels between a theory allegedly imbedded in
the Vedas and contemporary unified-field theories. Regarding (1), Hagelin
goes to some lengths to invoke the more recherché possibilities allowable by
quantum theory, in particular, levitation. The problem is that, ignoring for
now the ME, no sidhis are validated and so the far-fetched explanation lacks
purpose. Under the circumstances, Hagelin assigns premier importance to the
ME, saying it provides "the central core of experimental evidence in support
of the proposed identity between pure consciousness and the unified field"
(1987:73).
Hagelinąs (and O88ąs) other pillars are equally shaky. His argument for a
unified field-consciousness identity suggests that some quantum-mechanical
properties of physical fields match characteristics of consciousness.
However, his argument relies critically upon ambiguity and obscurity in the
terms denoting these properties. For instance, he notes that "creativity of
consciousness" describes intellectual inventiveness, whereas "creativity of
matter" describes the quantum fieldąs capacity to generate particles. Both
kinds of creativity share the characteristic of production, but Hagelin does
nothing to show that these two kinds of production are the same, or even
interestingly analogous. This is about as cogent as arguing that the mind is
a sort of mirror because both reflect, but it does capture the essence of
Hagelinąs approach.
To draw his parallels between the Vedas and contemporary unified-field
theories, Hagelin relies on numerological and exegetic styles of reasoning.
For example, his evidence for linkages between the Vedas, the unified
quantum field, and consciousness includes the fact that there are five
special Vedic terms called tanmatras, and there are five "spin-types" in
quantum mechanics. Moreover, the quantum field theory that Hagelin
especially favors is known among physicists as a "superstring" theory. In
corroboration, Hagelin offers a line from a Vedic text that he translates as
"My body is called a string."[8] Hagelinąs interpretations of physical
fields in terms of consciousness are supported by nothing more than the
construction of arbitrary formal isomorphisms, metaphors, and a reliance
upon ambiguity and vague analogy.
In sum, O88ąs theory does not pass minimal criteria of meaningfulness and
logical integrity. Even if it did, where the theory in question is that
which is at best foreshadowed in Hagelinąs writings, and prior knowledge
includes knowledge of physical laws, neurophysiology and the like, the
probability of the MT in view of prior knowledge is very close to zero.[9]
Evidence for the "Maharishi Effect"
Even if the MT is not compelling, the kinds of empirical results claimed to
support the theory would be noteworthy if true. As indicated by Abelson
(forthcoming)[10] and Schrodt (1990), however, the empirical claims are
weakened considerably by the nature of the research design and statistical
techniques used by O88. These critics emphasize problems endemic to
non-random treatment conditions, and the proneness of time-series analyses
to Type II (false positive) errors.[11] In contrast, we take a more direct
approach suggested by the two remaining components of Bayesą theorem:
whether the evidence offered for the MT is actually predicted by the theory,
and whether specific alternative hypotheses explain the evidence.[12]
Do Predictions Derive From the Theory?
To be credible, MT must explain (1) how group meditation affects the unified
field, (2) how these effects in turn cause changes in the actions of
individual human beings, and (3) how those individual actions have their
claimed social impact. Not clear in the theory is how meditatorsą brains
spontaneously synchronize to produce "coherence," how coherence modifies
physio-chemical structures within the brains of distant others, why
coherence only causes phenomena that happen to be defined socio-culturally
as "positive," and how the distribution of behaviors is affected at the
population level.[13]
Hagelin (1987:69) concedes that MT does not explain how meditators affect
the ostensible unified field, and the emotions, thoughts, and behaviors of
people within it. Moreover, if the material world is presumed to be
influenced by collective meditation (as it must be if the unified field is
affected), then more direct measures are possible: inanimate ME-detectors
should be placed at varying distances from the meditation group.[14] As it
stands, causal linkages from individual TM practitioners to, for instance, a
diminished likelihood of Nebraskans wrecking their cars, are hidden in a
very "black box."
Another indication that predictions do not derive from the theory is that
lagged effects were not specified prior to the research. The researchers
then interpret any significant correlation at any non-negative time lag for
any indicator as supporting their theory. This multiplies the likelihood of
finding "supportive" evidence, but opens the door to Type II errors even
wider.
The ME equation, from which specific hypotheses might have been derived, was
ignored completely in the research. The time-series analysis employed each
dayąs higher number of Sidhi meditators rather than its square, and the
number of non-Sidhi meditators was not included in the test. There also were
periods during the study when meditation group size fell below assumed
thresholds for affecting Lebanon, or both Lebanon and Israel, but
Sidhi-group size rather than zero was used as the independent variable.[15]
In fact, the Sidhi group should not have been powerful enough to influence
the Lebanese war, or even most of Israel. O88 argue that the roughly 38,000
non-Sidhi meditators in Israel and 2,000 more in Lebanon provided the needed
boost. However, O88 provide no information about the geographic distribution
of these meditators or evidence to support their assumption that they were
in the area and meditating during the vacation month of August which
comprises half the test period.
In sum, ME predictions cannot be derived from the MT. There are gaps in the
causal chain from group meditation to the phenomena supposedly affected,
there are no specified time lags for the ME, and despite the capacity of
MTąs formal component to generate specific ME predictions, the model is
ignored. Thus, evidence offered for the ME cannot significantly increase
confidence in the veracity of the MT.
Can Alternative Hypotheses Explain the Evidence?
O88 presented their empirical findings several ways, but the most compelling
showed superimposed graphs of (1) a daily composite index of Jerusalem crime
rates, auto accidents and fires; Israeli crimes and "national mood," and
Lebanese war intensity; and (2) the number of meditators in the larger of
each dayąs two meditation groups. Time-series analyses confirmed a
statistically significant relationship between the number of meditators and
the composite index for lags 3 0. Our analysis focuses on a few specific
factors that were not included in the analysis but readily could have
influenced both the meditatorsą decisions to participate and the social
indicators used as dependent variables. Importantly, the research design
prevents us from knowing how many other factors may have contributed to a
spurious correlation.
Holidays and Vacation Month. O88 recognize that mundane events affect both
meditation group size and their social indicators: Their statistical model
compensates for weekend effects and for three Jewish holidays. There are
other factors for which the authors failed to invoke statistical controls,
however. Perhaps the most obvious omission was that of three other major
Jewish holidays during the study period‹Succoth, Shemini Azeret, and Simhat
Torah. Nearly all of the meditators who participated in the research came
from the liberal end of the Jewish religious spectrum.[16] As was clear in
the graph of meditation group sizes, they were willing to travel and
meditate on the Sabbath and holidays. In contrast, Orthodox Jews do not
cook, light fires, or travel in cars on religious holidays or the Sabbath.
Undoubtedly the holidays also produce some elevation in mood, and may
coincide with reductions in war hostilities measured from nearby Lebanon.
Therefore, the same factors that increase meditation group sizes at certain
times would also correspond to the abstinence from cooking and travel for a
very significant portion of the Israeli population. We might then expect to
find not only a heightening in national mood at the same time larger numbers
of meditators turned out for the study, but also coincident reductions in
domestic fires and automobile accidents.
Another effect, obvious in the graph of meditation group sizes, is
attributable to August being vacation month in Israel. During August
Israelis leave the country in large numbers. Critically, the investigators
did not take into account the effects on fires and auto accidents of the
lower population in Israel during August, of the tendency to cook less
during hot weather, and of the potential for reduced war hostilities in the
desert heat.[17] It may be difficult, but the burden of eliminating these
possibilities rests upon the researchers.
The Lebanon War. O88 highlighted the negative effects of meditation group
size on war intensity in Lebanon. Hostilities in the Lebanon war involved an
enormously complex interaction between a multitude of social, political and
military forces. A good sense of this complexity can be gleaned from The New
York Times Index "Middle East" entries for this period.[18] We offer several
observations:
O88 make no mention of the many widely-publicized military and political
events that may have both influenced the Lebanon war and induced meditatorsą
patterns of participation. Many such events occurred around the midpoint of
the study, coinciding with the wildest fluctuations in group size and war
intensity. For example: (1) Israel announced it would withdraw its army from
the Shouf mountains overlooking Beirut to a line along a river to the south.
Major fighting erupted in Beirut just before the announced withdrawal date.
(2) During the study period Prime Minister Begin both announced his
intention to resign, and did so. (3) The Lebanese army completed a
successful sweep of Beirut. A lull then occurred until the Israelis withdrew
from the Shouf. Fighting promptly erupted among various factions. (4) Within
days battles were being waged over the Shouf by U.S. and Druse militia, and
the U.S. congress voted to keep the Marines in Lebanon for 18 more months.
No effort was made to ask meditators why they showed up or stayed home in
droves at various times during this period of the study.[19]
In sum, it is hardly unreasonable to suppose that the fluctuations of the
dependent variables measured by O88 would have remained exactly as they were
even if there had been no meditators at all. The claim that MT provides the
only plausible explanation of these data cannot be sustained. There are
alternative explanations that do not depend on esoteric or paranormal
influences.
Discussion and Conclusion
We have devoted considerable space to the analysis of a particular heterodox
report, the upshot of which is that, at this time, the claims of that report
do not merit being taken seriously by the scientific community. The theory
motivating the research is ill-constructed and not compelling in view of
prior knowledge; the evidence offered is not impressive and mundane
alternative hypotheses offer plausible explanations for the findings. Only
if its data were above suspicion, and no alternative explanations were
known, would MT warrant any significant confidence in its truth. It is only
by acquiring evidence of a sufficient quality and quantity, rendering any
thought of its rejection irrational, that the heterodox theory ultimately
can triumph.
Defenders of O88 might complain that we have not really explained their
data. After all, we have not demonstrated that the causal factors we cite
account for the observed correlations, nor have we re-analyzed the data to
show that the ME vanishes when controls are entered for all those test
periods when known exogenous factors might be influencing the results (which
is almost for the entire duration of the experiment). Such an objection
would be entirely misplaced. The ball is in the other court: It is
sufficient, for the purposes of defense, that a well-entrenched position
offer plausible alternative explanations for the challenging data. The
detailed task of ruling out those explanations lies properly with the
challengers. Failing that, the heterodox theory cannot rise even to the
level of being worthy of serious consideration.
Our criticisms may be divided into those directed against the MT and those
disputing interpretations of their data. As to the first, the main points
were that the MT has serious problems regarding the clarity and integrity of
its arguments, and it does not cohere well with other strongly confirmed
theories, hence conflicting with the evidence supporting those theories. MT
is under-articulated, often vague or enigmatic, reliant upon specious
analyses, and silent about key processes that link causes to their alleged
effects. These defects are not uncommon in novel theories, but in this case
they allow nothing better than crude plausibility arguments for its
extraordinary predictions. Contrast this with, say, the theory of
relativity, which was not only formulated in a highly precise fashion, but
which entailed relatively simple and numerically precise predictions for its
tests. So MT has a low prior probability. That, after all, is what makes it
unorthodox, and its road to plausibility is bound to be arduous. Not only
must a great deal of supporting data be amassed but, most likely, an
indefinitely large body of established science will have to be overturned or
revised to accommodate the new results.[20]
This brings us to interpretation of evidence. The MT predicts correlations
that are supposed to support its causal claims. Against those claims we have
launched, in descending order of importance, (1) arguments that offer
concrete explanations of findings without invoking the ME; (2) more
speculative arguments from plausible serendipity; and (3) arguments that do
not explain a correlation between two variables, but that suggest the
dependent variable can be fully explained without recourse to Sidhi group
sizes. In the first class fall our suggestions concerning fires, auto
accidents, national mood, and the immediate consequences of the Begin
resignation; in the second category, our speculations about the lull in the
war during part of August; and in the third, our mention of some of the many
factors affecting the vicissitudes of the war generally. Even without
quantitative support, this sort of defense of normal science is sufficient
to undermine claims of plausibility on behalf of unorthodox theories that
claim quantitative support. The low prior probability of a heterodox
challenger suffices to establish a presumption of guilt.
A further point is relevant to the social and historical sciences, which
often treat events that, once passed, can never be duplicated fully. Even
worse, relevant details, unless recognized to be significant and recorded at
the time, later may be unrecoverable. In this case normal science,
inevitably a Johnny-come-lately upon the scene, would suffer an irremediable
disadvantage if the demand for a fully-developed alternative explanation had
to be met. Thus, unless a heterodox challenger can produce experiments that
are well-controlled, thoroughly analyzable, and replicable, the standard of
disproof to which normal science can legitimately be held is quite low. Even
arguments of the weakest class (3, above) must be reckoned to weigh heavily
against any theory with a prior probability as low as that of MT.
Finally, we do not pretend to resolve two difficult but important practical
issues. First, to what extent should the scientific community devote time,
effort, and journal space to debates over unconventional theories, at the
expense of more conventional work that is more likely to be fruitful? We
offer two brief observations. First, when research is conducted on behalf of
an organized group (as was O88), its results will often find publication in
arenas that do not afford an opportunity for informed rebuttal. Second, such
rebuttals (as we have shown) need not be overly expansive to undermine an
unorthodox theory.
As for the second issue, publication confers a certain aura of legitimacy in
the eyes of the lay public and even the research community. Proponents of
unorthodox theories know this and, as with TM proponents, often attempt to
parlay such recognition into research grants, influence upon public
policy-makers, and influence with the public at large. To what extent does
the scientific community have a responsibility to allow‹or not allow‹these
considerations to influence its handling of unconventional proposals? How
much responsibility the scientific community bears is, in part, a function
of the significance of the consequences of public acceptance. Publication of
an unorthodox medical claim, for example, might clearly have severe
consequences, whereas publication of some novel view about the formation of
igneous rocks most likely would not. It is here, in any case, that a much
wider understanding of the principle that publication should not be taken to
confer respectability in the sense of acceptability, would be beneficial.
References
Abelson, Robert P. Forthcoming. "Editorial Comment." Journal of Conflict
Resolution.
Aron, Elaine, and Arthur Aron. 1986. The Maharishi Effect: A Revolution
Through Meditation. Walpole, NH: Stillpoint Publishing.
Cohen, Bernard P. 1989. Developing Sociological Knowledge. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Davies, P.C.W., and J. Brown. Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? New
York: Cambridge.
Fales, Evan, and B. Markovsky. 1995. "Evaluating Heterodox Theories: The
Maharishiąs Extraordinary Social Physics." Presented at the Annual Meetings
of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.
Falk, Arthur. 1995. "Wisdom Updated." Philosophy of Science 62:389-403.
Frank, Benis M. 1987. U.S. Marines in Lebanon 19821984. Washington, D.C.:
History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. (U.S.
Government Printing Office.)
Friedman, Thomas L. 1991. From Beirut to Jerusalem (2nd Edition). New York:
Farrar, Strauss, Giroux.
Hagelin, John S. 1987. "Is Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field
Theoristąs Perspective." Modern Science and Vedic Science 1:28-87.
-----. 1989. "Restructuring Physics From its Foundation in Light of
Maharishi Vedic Science." Modern Science and Vedic Science 3:3-72.
Hatchard, Guy D., Ashley J. Deans, Kenneth L. Cavanaugh and David
Orme-Johnson. 1996. "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 2:165-174.
Hume, David. 1955[1748]. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New
York: Liberal Arts Press.
Markovsky, Barry. 1994. "The Structure of Theories." In Martha Foschi and
Edward J. Lawler (eds.), Group Processes: Sociological Analyses. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
------. 1996. "Theory, Science, and "Micro-macro" Bridges in Structural
Social Psychology." Current Research in Social Psychology 1(4):30-42,
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc.
Orme-Johnson, David W., Charles N. Alexander, John L. Davies, Howard M.
Chandler, and Wallace E. Larimore. 1988. "International Peace Project in the
Middle East: The effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field."
Journal of Conflict Resolution 32:776-812.
Pagels, Heinz R. 1986. Affidavit No. 85-2849, United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.
Radin, Dean I., Jannine M. Rebman, and Maikwe P. Cross. 1996. "Anomalous
Organization of Random Events by Group Consciousness: Two Exploratory
Experiments." Journal of Scientific Exploration 10(1):143-168.
Schiff, Zeąev, and Ehud Yaąari. 1984. Israeląs Lebanon War. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Schrodt, Philip A. 1990. "A Methodological Critique of a Test of the Effects
of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field." Journal of Conflict
Resolution 34:745-55.
Stenger, Victor J. 1990. Physics and Psychics. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Wallace, Robert Keith. 1989. The Neurophysiology of Enlightenment.
Fairfield, IA: MIU Press.
Yaniv, Avner. 1987. Dilemmas of Security: Politics, Strategy, and the
Israeli Experience in Lebanon. New York: Oxford University Press.
Notes
[*] Copyright (c) 1997 The University of North Carolina Press. Published
December 1997 in Social Forces Volume 76 (2):511-25. Reprinted with
permission.
The authors contributed equally to this project. Direct correspondence to
Evan Fales, Department of Philosophy, or Barry Markovsky, Department of
Sociology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242. E-mail
evan-...@uiowa.edu or barry-m...@uiowa.edu. We are grateful to Scott
Eliason, Jeffrey Erger, Donald Krieger, Michael Lovaglia, and Philip Schrodt
for their insights and comments on an earlier draft. A much more
comprehensive treatment of the issues and analyses in this article is
available from the authors upon request.
[1] This is expressed most rigorously by the formula , where P is the
probability or level of confirmation of the theory (T), e is the empirical
evidence for T, and k is prior knowledge relevant to T. The formula asserts
that T is confirmed to the degree that P(T|k) ® 1, P(e|T&k) ® 1, and P(e|k)
® 0.
[2] If P(T|k) » 0, and if, for every competing alternative Ti, P(e|Ti&k) »
0, then, even if P(e|T&k) is high, P(e|k) will be very low. This follows
from the expansion This generalizes to the case where k < 1, where k
includes well-established theories and their supporting data. In effect,
because those data support theories that conflict with T, they conflict with
e. Unless the truth of e has been established beyond any possibility of
doubt, this weakens rational credence in e. See Falk (1995) for a formal
Bayesian analysis.
[3] In his classic discussion "Of Miracles," Hume (1955[1748]) defends an
even more cavalier dismissal of heterodoxy. He observes that it is not
incumbent upon one to uncover fraud or error in dismissing every miracle
report. Nevertheless, we can feel confident in such a dismissal because the
occurrence of the miracle would violate our well-entrenched understanding of
nature, and would therefore be placed in competition for our allegiance with
the enormous mass of evidence which supports that understanding. It will
therefore be more likely than not that some undetected-perhaps
undetectable-mistake lurks behind the problematic data.
[4] See also Wallace (1989) for a more comprehensive but less detailed
review. Hagelin is a faculty member of the Maharishi University of
Management and was the Natural Law Party's presidential candidate in 1992
and 1996. The NLP promotes TM as the solution to virtually all of society's
ills.
[5] Aron and Aron (1986:11) state this more bluntly: "...[T]he pure
consciousness experience is actually the subjective experience of what in
physics is called the 'unified field.'"
[6] We are grateful to Wayne Polyzou, Yannick Meurice and Bill Klink of the
University of Iowa Department of Physics and Astronomy for their input.
[7] The intuitive answer is that individuals in the field "use up" the
"energy" generated by the meditators. However, this is not our understanding
of how the underlying physical field is presumed to operate, nor is it a
process that we have found discussed in the TM literature.
[8] Frederick Smith (personal communication), a Sanskritist at the
University of Iowa, notes that Hagelin's translation is an esoteric one,
dramatically different from that which standard Sanskritic scholarship
delivers.
[9] Important general questions have been raised by philosophers about the
content of k, prior knowledge. For practical purposes and in the present
context, however, it seems entirely fair to include in k, as we have done,
those well-established theories and data from physics and biology to which
Hagelin et al. themselves appeal.
[10] In 1994 we were informed by the Editor of the Journal of Conflict
Resolution that Abelson's paper was forthcoming. It has not yet appeared at
this writing.
[11] Schrodt (1990) cites research demonstrating that business cycles
"cause" sunspots and that eggs "cause" chickens (but not the reverse). The
problem is that the noisier the data, the greater the range of frequencies
it contains. Standard time-series methods then become ideally suited to
extracting whatever "effect" one desires.
[12] A re-analysis of the data also would have been desirable, though not
essential for our case. However, David Orme-Johnson has refused numerous
requests for a copy of the raw data set.
[13] Beyond the purview of this critique are the moral and ethical issues
that arise when meditators purport to alter experimentally the moods,
thought processes, and behaviors of others without their informed consent,
and when the TM movement assigns itself the responsibility of manipulating
the substrate of all existence.
[14] This is the approach adopted by Radin and colleagues in their
consciousness research (e.g., Radin, Rebman and Cross 1996). They look for
attentional effects in the anomalous output sequences of random number
generators.
[15] We argue below that Sidhi group size is affected by some of the same
factors that influence the social indicators. Including Sidhi group size in
the analysis when it is below threshold is thus likely to increase the
"confirmatory" observations, artificially increase the apparent ME, and
further bias results in a direction favoring the hypothesis.
[16] Confirmed in conversation with David Orme-Johnson and Charles
Alexander.
[17] Confirmed in conversation with Alexander.
[18] We also relied on more extensive analyses provided by Frank (1987),
Friedman (1991), Schiff and Ya'ari (1984), and Yaniv (1987).
[19] Confirmed in conversation with Alexander.
[20] TM researchers claim over 40 replications of the Maharishi Effect. Of
those which are published, most are in obscure or newer journals (e.g.,
Hatchard, Deans, Cavanaugh and Orme-Johnson 1996). Moreover no two
"replications" that we have reviewed actually employ identical procedures,
measures and/or model specifications, and none of the field studies employed
safeguards against the sorts of problems we raise.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
<snip>
> Maharishi Effect
>
> by Barry Markovsky
Markovsky's is the *sole* indpendent close analysis of a ME study
of which I'm aware. He makes some good points, but others are
distinctly questionable. He and his co-author did subsequently get
their analysis published in a sociology journal:
Here's the abstract of a rebuttal of Markovsky's critique by the
authors of the Jerusalem study:
<snip>
> Regarding (3), the researchers filing their social indicators with an
> independent review board prior to the study is largely beside the point.
> Their report does not mention filing in advance crucial details of the
> statistical analysis, allowing for exploratory analysis to be portrayed as
> confirmatory.
<snip>
> Finally, for those
> who have not yet seen the report, the 1993 Washington D.C. study employed
> the same types of procedures and analyses as those in the Jerusalem study.
Actually the authors of the 1993 D.C. study *did* file their
statistical methodology in advance with an independent
review board.
Also it should be noted that while Markovsky portrayed himself as an
neutral researcher in this initial post to sci.skeptic, this was just a
pose. His subsequent contributions to alt.meditation.transcendental,
as well as media interviews and other material, have demonstrated
that he is firmly in the anti-TM camp, and that his interest in the TM
studies has been from the start with a view to debunking them.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
> On 1/24/06 11:05 AM, in article BFFBBA8D.2892%vajra...@not-shunyata.org,
> "Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote:
>
> > You may also enjoy:
> >
> > "Social Action at a Distance? Evaluating Heterodox Theories," by Evan M.
> > Fales & Barry Markovsky, Published in Social Forces 76. 1997. 511-525.
>
> Evaluating Heterodox Theories*
>
> Evan Fales and Barry Markovsky
> The University of Iowa
This is, of course, the critique Markovsky was working on and
hoping to have published that he described in the post from
sci.skeptic that Vaj reposted above (which you might not realize,
given Vaj's "You might also enjoy" introductory comment, as if
this were an additional entirely different critique).
It's also the critique I cited in my response, along with the abstract
of a rebuttal by the ME study's authors:
Vaj
1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
<pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
From the Oxford University Press book, Voodoo Science: The Road from
Foolishness to Fraud.
Robert L. Park is professor of physics at the University of Maryland and
director of the Washington Office of the American Physical Society.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_24/ai_67691836
Voodoo Science and the Belief Gene
Skeptical Inquirer, Sept, 2000 by Robert L. Park
Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with
Furl.net. It's free! Save it.
How do people decide what to believe? And why do some believe while others
doubt? Science offers a strategy for sorting out the truth.
In the summer of 1993, more than 5,000 experts in Transcendental Meditation
(TM) from around the world spent two-week shifts in the nation's capital as
part of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime in
Washington, D.C. Mostly young, white, professionals, they were there to
create a "coherent consciousness field" by meditating in unison. They
expected this to reduce stress and promote tranquility, not just among those
meditating, but throughout the city. Organizers of the $6 million project
predicted that violent crime in the city would be reduced by 20 percent.
The head of the project was John Hagelin, a 39-year-old physicist with a
receding hairline and a perpetual cherubic smile. His high forehead was
unfurrowed by negative thoughts. A summa cum laude graduate of Dartmouth,
Hagelin had gone on to complete a Ph.D. in physics at Harvard. In 1983, he
held a postdoctoral research appointment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator.
One day he simply vanished, reappearing a year later as chairman of the
Physics Department at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa.
The University was founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Indian guru who
vaulted to fame after becoming the spiritual advisor to the Beatles.
At a press conference, Hagelin explained that the Project to Reduce Violent
Crime was firmly grounded in superstring theory, an abstract and highly
speculative theory that seeks to connect all the forces of nature. According
to Hagelin, one such force is a collective consciousness of society.
Transcendental Meditation taps into that force.
The weeks that followed seemed like something our of an old mad-scientist
movie--an experiment gone horribly wrong. Each Monday morning, the
Washington Post would tally the gruesome weekend killings in the city.
Participants in the project seemed serenely unaware of the mounting carnage
around them as they sat cross-legged in groups throughout the city, eyes
closed, peacefully repeating their mantras. The murder rate for those two
months reached a level unmatched before or since.
At the end of the demonstration period, Hagelin promised that over the
coming year the results would be carefully analyzed according to strict
scientific principles. As promised, he was back in Washington a year later
with a 55-page report. It was a clinic in data manipulation. Smiling his
unworldly smile, Hagelin announced that during the period of the experiment
their analysis showed a significant reduction in psychiatric emergency
calls, fewer complaints against the police, and an increase in public
approval of President Clinton--all consistent with the hypothesis that a
coherence-creating group of TM experts can relieve social stress and reverse
negative social trends.
More significantly, he said, violent crime in the city had been reduced by a
remarkable 18 percent. "An 18 percent reduction compared to what?" asked a
puzzled reporter for the Washington Post, no doubt recalling the previous
summers dreadful murder rampage. Compared to what it would have been if the
meditators had not been meditating, Hagelin explained patiently. "But how
could you know what the rate would have been?" the reporter persisted. That
had been arrived at, Hagelin responded with just a trace of irritation, by
means of a "scientifically rigorous time-series analysis" that included not
only crime data, but such factors as weather and fluctuations in Earth's
magnetic field.
The belief of the Maharishi's followers in the power of TM had not been
influenced in the slightest by the outcome of the "experiment." This was
pseudoscience--all the talk of "string theory" and "consciousness fields"
and "time series analysis" was technobabble, meant to give the appearance of
science.
Which is not to say that those involved were not sincere in their belief.
They may believe so fervently that they are convinced that, properly
interpreted, the data must support their belief. But how do people decide
what to believe? And why do some believe while others doubt?
The Great Global Warming Debate
A good place to examine this question is the controversy over global
warming. Andre Gide, the great French moralist, wrote in his journal a
half-century ago that, "Man's responsibility increases, as that of the gods
decreases." Where once people accepted storms and drought as divine will,
there is now overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity can affect
Earth's climate.
The evidence comes from a revolution in climate research over the past
decade, brought about by new observational techniques including satellites,
and a prodigious increase in computational and data-storage capabilities
made possible by microelectronics. It now seems undeniable that surface
temperatures are warmer than they were 150 years ago. There is also little
doubt that the burning of fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial
revolution has led to a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
What is in dispute are the long-term consequences of continued carbon
dioxide increases on Earth's climate and the quality of life. To what extent
are the interpretations given to the scientific evidence shaped by the world
view of the scientist?
Before the industrial revolution, the concentration of atmospheric carbon
dioxide represented a natural balance, but in a little more than a century,
humans have disrupted that balance by burning fossil fuels that were built
up in underground deposits over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
If this release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere continues,
climatologists warn, there could be disastrous consequences in this century:
many of the world's great cities will be submerged by rising sea levels as
the polar ice caps melt, and drastic changes in rainfall patterns could
wreak havoc on food production. The nations of the world, many scientists
argue, should take immediate steps to control the burning of fossil fuels,
at least until we can better predict the consequences. We have no right,
they declare, to place future generations in jeopardy.
Not all scientists agree. A number of prominent scientists point out that
there were periods of global warming long before man began burning fossil
fuels, and [CO.sub.2] is a relatively minor greenhouse constituent in the
atmosphere. They contend that any rise in global temperature since 1850 may
simply be the result of natural solar variations. Some go further,
describing the increase in carbon dioxide as "a wonderful and unexpected
gift of the industrial revolution." The increase in atmospheric [CO.sub.2]
stimulates plant growth, making this a lusher, more productive world,
capable of sustaining a much larger population. The more industrial growth
we have, including increased burning of fossil fuels, they argue, the better
off we will be. They stop just short of telling people they have a moral
obligation to burn more hydrocarbons.
If scientists all claim to believe in the scientific method, and if they all
have access to the same data, how can there be such deep disagreements among
them? What separates the two sides in the climate controversy, however, is
not so much an argument over the scientific facts, scientific laws, or even
the scientific method. If the climate debate was just about the laws of
physics, there would be little disagreement. But the climate is the most
complicated system scientists have ever dared to tackle. There are huge gaps
in the data for the distant past, which, combined with uncertainties in the
computer models, means that even small changes in the assumptions result in
very different projections far down the road. Neither side disagrees with
that. Both sides also agree that [CO.sub.2] levels in the atmosphere are
increasing. What separates them are profoundly different political and
religious world views. They want different things for the world.
The great global warming debate is thus as much an argument about values as
it is about science. It sounds like science, with numbers and equations and
projections tossed back and forth, and the antagonists believe sincerely
that they are engaged in a purely scientific debate. Most scientists,
however, were exposed to political and religious world views long before
they were exposed in a serious way to science. They may later adopt a firm
scientific world view, but earlier world views "learned at their mother's
knee" tend to occupy the gaps in scientific understanding.
This sort of dispute is seized upon by postmodern critics of science as
proof that science is merely a reflection of cultural bias, not a means of
reaching objective truth. They portray scientific consensus as scientists
voting on the truth. That scientists are influenced by their beliefs is
undeniable, but to the frustration of the postmodernists, science is
enormously successful. To understand how science can rise above the beliefs
of its practitioners, we must first understand something of the process by
which beliefs are generated.
Pleistocene Park
To borrow from the premise of the movie Jurassic Park, suppose a mosquito
gorged on one of our Cro-Magnon ancestors 30,000 years ago and then became
trapped in amber, providing science with ancient human DNA. Would a
Cro-Magnon clone, raised in today's society, be some dangerous brute that
might escape and terrorize society? The movie Pleistocene Park would not be
that exciting. Far too little time has passed for any genetic adaptation to
the modern world. All of recorded history covers a mere 4,000 years--the
industrial revolution just 200--the space age barely four decades. So here
we are, trying to cope with a world of jet travel and computers with a brain
that responds to external stimuli in ways that conferred some sort of
survival advantage on our distant human and prehuman ancestors. What offered
a survival advantage in a Pleistocene wilderness does not necessarily do so
today.
Psychologist James Alcock describes our brains as "belief engines,"
constantly processing information coming in from our senses and generating
new beliefs about the world around us. [See James E. Alcock, "The Belief
Engine," SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, May/June 1995.] A belief begins when the brain
makes an association between two events of the form: B follows A. The next
time A occurs, the brain is primed to expect B to again follow. The survival
advantage of such a strategy for our primitive ancestors is obvious. They
had scant means for separating causal connections from mere
coincidence--better to take heed of every connection and be safe. We avoid
some food, for example, because we once got sick after eating it. Our
illness may have had nothing to do with the food, but unless we're facing
starvation, there's not much to be lost by avoiding it.
Information gathered by the senses is normally routed through the thalamus,
a small subsection deep within the brain, to the sensory cortex, which
analyzes it in detail to decide how much weight it should be given. An
exception is olfactory input, which apparently follows more ancient pathways
to reach the cortex. Sensory information finally reaches the amygdala,
almond-shaped structures in the temporal lobes. The amygdala contribute the
emotional portion of our response to stimuli. Parts of the amygdala, for
example, are involved in fear. Animals with damage to these parts are no
longer perturbed by stimuli that previously would have terrified them.
Whether a belief is retained depends on how significant B is--how frightened
we are for example--and whether the association with A gets reinforced.
Without reinforcement, the expectation that B will follow A will usually
fade in time. If B again follows A, however, it may still be a coincidence,
but it will now be far harder to convince us of that.
The belief may also be permanent if the information entering the thalamus
coincides with a high stare of emotional arousal, such as fear, or the
thrill of victory. The chemical messengers of emotion cause the thalamus to
bypass the sensory cortex and route the information directly to the
amygdala. This is often the origin of what might be called "personal
superstitions"--the golfer who won't play without his lucky hat for example.
People develop elaborate rituals in an effort to recreate the conditions
that surrounded some rewarding experience, or to avoid conditions their
brains associate with fear or pain. We often find ourselves almost compelled
to go through these rituals, even when the cerebral cortex is telling us
that a causal connection is highly implausible.
This kind of belief generation was going on long before our ancestors began
to resemble humans, of course, but the advent of language opened a powerful
new channel, both for the formation of beliefs and for their reinforcement.
Speech exposes us to the generation of shared beliefs -- beliefs based not
on personal experience but on experiences related to us by others. This has
the potential to spare us a lot of unpleasantness. Everyone, for example,
need not discover the hard way that a particular plant is poisonous. The
shared beliefs of a family or tribe are also a powerful force of social
cohesion, and are reinforced throughout our lives.
Language makes vicarious experience the dominant source of belief in humans,
overwhelming personal experience. The power of language was enormously
amplified by the invention of writing, and continues to be amplified by
every new advance in communication from the printing press to the World Wide
Web. Beliefs now spread around the world in the twinkling of a computer
chip. That which allows us to learn from others, unfortunately, also exposes
us to manipulation by them.
Small children are particularly open to new beliefs, accepting whatever they
are told by adults without question. Their belief engine runs freely,
finding few previous beliefs to contradict what they are told. For a small
child who must quickly learn that stoves burn and strange dogs bite, this
sort of credulity is important to survival. Because a child's beliefs are
not enmeshed in a network of related beliefs, however, children seem able to
cast them off almost as easily as they are adopted. Fantastic stories about
Santa Claus and tooth fairies, which are accepted uncritically, are dropped
just as uncritically when someone, often a playmate, explains that it isn't
really so. Nor do children appear to develop doubts about other things
they've been taught, just because the Santa Claus story was taken back.
As the store of beliefs grows, conflicts with existing beliefs become more
likely, and the child becomes more selective in accepting new beliefs. By
adolescence, beliefs tend to be enmeshed in an insulating matrix of related
beliefs. Once people become convinced that a rain dance produces rain, for
example, they do not lose their belief in years the drought persists. They
are more likely to conclude that they have fallen out of favor with the Rain
God.
The result is that most of us wind up with beliefs that closely resemble
those of our parents and community. Society, in fact, often holds it to be a
virtue to adhere to certain beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Belief in that which reason denies is associated with steadfastness and
courage, while skepticism is often identified with cynicism and weak
character. The more persuasive the evidence against a belief, the more
virtuous it is deemed to persist in it. We honor faith.
Faith can be a positive force, enabling people to persevere in the face of
daunting odds, but the line between perseverance and fanaticism is
perilously thin. Carried to extremes, faith becomes destructive--to the
residents of Jonestown, for example, or the Heaven's Gate cult. In both
cases, the faith of the believers was tested, and in both cases they passed
the test.
The wonder then is not that we can be easily fooled, but that we function as
well as we do on an alien planet that does not at all resemble the wild
planet on which our genes were selected. If this sounds hopelessly gloomy,
be patient, we are coming to the good news: We are not condemned to suffer
the tyranny of the belief engine. The primitive machinery of the belief
engine is still in place, hut evolution didn't stop there. It provided us
with an antidote.
What Is Science?
How can it be, we ask, that brains designed for finding food and avoiding
predators in a Pleistocene forest enable us to write sonnets and do integral
calculus? We invent poetry and higher mathematics because our brains hunger
for patterns. The wonderful pattern-recognition equipment residing in the
higher centers of the human brain allowed our ancestors to adapt to changing
conditions with remarkable ease, by quickly picking up the patterns that are
characteristic of the new environment.
Animals with much smaller brains than ours also rely on pattern recognition.
The desert Cataglyphis ant, for example, whose brain contains perhaps
100,000 brain cells, compared to a million times that many for a human,
forages over enormous expanses of seemingly featureless terrain, wandering
to and fro in search of food. When they finally encounter some wind-blown
seed, they return with it at once to their nest in an almost straight line.
They navigate by the position of the Sun--even if obscured by clouds--using
patterns of polarized light. But the ability of Cataglyphis to recognize
patterns, as marvelous as it is, is very specialized. Transplanted to a
different environment, such as the forest floor where landmarks abound, but
where the sky cannot be seen, Cataglyphis would be lost.
In humans, the ability to discern patterns is astonishingly general. Indeed,
we are driven to seek patterns in everything our senses respond to. So far,
we are better at it than the most powerful computer, and we derive enormous
pleasure from it. Pattern recognition is the basis of all esthetic
enjoyment, whether it is music, or poetry, or chess, or physics. As we
become more sophisticated, we seek out ever more subtle patterns. So intent
are we on finding patterns that we often insist on seeing them even when
they aren't there, like constructing familiar shapes from Rorschach blots.
The same brain that recognizes that tides are linked to phases of the Moon
may associate the positions of the stars with impending famine, or victory
in battle.
That is again the belief engine at work. But once we recognize how easily we
can be fooled by the workings of the belief engine, we can use the higher
centers of the brain to consciously construct a more refined strategy that
combines our aptitude for recognizing patterns with the accumulation of
observations about nature made possible by language.
Such a strategy is called "science." Richard Feynman described science as
what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves. Its success and
credibility are anchored in the willingness of scientists to expose their
ideas and results to the scrutiny of other scientists.
In practice, the process can be noisy and unpleasant. Heated arguments break
out at scientific conferences. Reviewers are sometimes accused of
obstructing the publication of results that contradict their own work, and
editors are accused of bias. Rivalries develop that are as intense as
anything that takes place on the playing field. Foolish work sometimes finds
its way into print, while a spectacular insight becomes mired in some petty
dispute. And yet, overall, the system works amazingly well; good work
eventually rises to the top, while the clutter of shoddy science remains
manageable. The process transcends the human failings of individual
scientists.
Scientists must also be prepared to abandon their most cherished notions.
When better evidence becomes available, science textbooks are rewritten with
hardly a backward glance. Many people are uneasy standing on such loose
soil; they seek a certainty that science cannot offer. For these people the
unchanging dictates of ancient religious beliefs, or the absolute assurances
of zealots, have a more powerful appeal. Paradoxically, however, yearning
for certainty is often mixed with respect for science. People long to be
told that modern science validates the teachings of some ancient scripture
or New Age guru. The purveyors of pseudoscience have been quick to exploit
this ambivalence. Scientists generally believe the cure for pseudoscience is
to raise science literacy. We must ask, however, what it is we would want a
scientifically literate society to know. There are a few basic
concepts--Darwinian evolution, conservation of energy, the periodic
table--that all educated people should know something about, but t he
explosive growth of scientific knowledge in the last half of the twentieth
century has left the scientists themselves struggling to keep up with
developments in their own narrow specialties. It is not so much knowledge of
science that the public needs, as a scientific world view--an understanding
that we live in an orderly universe, governed by physical laws that cannot
be circumvented by any amount of piety or cleverness.
Although the old belief-generating machinery of the brain is still in place,
habits of critical thinking can be adopted that subject each fledgling
belief to skeptical analysis before continued reinforcement renders the
belief hopelessly resistant. For example, does B really follow A any more
frequently than we would expect from chance? Any such analysis must be
consciously imposed by the higher centers of the brain. The belief engine
knows nothing of the laws of probability.
Back to the Carbon Dioxide War
Which brings us back to the global climate change debate. The Malthusian
pessimists argue for the "precautionary principle." Changing human behavior
takes time, they contend, and if we don't start now it may be too late to
prevent a catastrophe. On the other side, the technological optimists insist
that to make policy before we understand the problem, if indeed a problem
exists, is to invite failure. To have followed such a policy in the past,
they argue, would have denied the world the unquestioned benefits of
industrialization. They remind us that science has always found solutions to
the problems generated by population growth and industrialization.
The numbers, when science finally learns them, will determine the winner.
Meanwhile, each side knows that every flaw in their data or oversight in
their analysis will be seized upon by their opponents. Both sides strive to
produce better data and better analysis in the conviction that the truth
will favor their prejudice. The ideological passion of Malthusian pessimists
at one extreme and technological optimists at the other provides a powerful
motivation for better climate science--as long as both sides adhere to the
open scientific process.
Transcendental Superstrings
Pseudoscience is never open to scientific challenge. In the spring of 1999,
John Hagelin was back in Washington. He held a press conference to announce
a plan to end the violence in Kosovo. Citing the "demonstrated success" of
the 1993 Project to Reduce Violent Crime in Washington, Hagelin proposed
sending an elite corps of 7,000 Yogic flyers into Kosovo to meditate in
unison.
Yogic flyers, of course, are the most highly trained followers of the
Maharishi, reportedly having developed the ability to levitate. Should
anyone doubt it, mattresses were spread on the floor of the National Press
Club and a dozen young men seated themselves in the usual meditation
position. After several minutes of silent meditation, one of them abruptly
levitated-then another. Soon they were all levitating. Well, not exactly
floating. It looked more like corn popping, as they repeatedly flexed their
muscles and became briefly airborne. It was clearly hard work. I had the
definite impression they were following parabolic trajectories.
Hagelin seemed perplexed that Secretary of State Albright had declined his
offer. I must admit that I felt the plan had a good chance of working. The
sight of 7,000 Yogic flyers popping up and down would surely have rendered
the Serbian troops helpless from laughter.
Robert L. Park is professor of physics at the University of Maryland and
director of the Washington Office of the American Physical Society. He is
the author of Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, published
by Oxford University Press, from which he adapted this article. [C]2000 by
Oxford University Press. Published by arrangement with the author and Oxford
University Press.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group
Vaj
1138122021....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> Also it should be noted that while Markovsky portrayed himself as an
> neutral researcher in this initial post to sci.skeptic, this was just a
> pose. His subsequent contributions to alt.meditation.transcendental,
> as well as media interviews and other material, have demonstrated
> that he is firmly in the anti-TM camp, and that his interest in the TM
> studies has been from the start with a view to debunking them.
Or, using Occams' razor, we could more reasonably conclude that he was
instead reacting to the incoherent and hostile quality often displayed here
by certain zealots.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
> On 1/21/06 6:20 PM, in article
> 1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
> > experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
> From the Oxford University Press book, Voodoo Science: The Road from
> Foolishness to Fraud.
Oh, is this where you got the mistaken impression that violent
crime increased during the D.C. study, Vaj?
Parks's account is quite deliberately misleading. See my earlier
post about the murder rate.
<snip>
> More significantly, he said, violent crime in the city had been reduced by a
> remarkable 18 percent. "An 18 percent reduction compared to what?" asked a
> puzzled reporter for the Washington Post, no doubt recalling the previous
> summers dreadful murder rampage. Compared to what it would have been if the
> meditators had not been meditating, Hagelin explained patiently. "But how
> could you know what the rate would have been?" the reporter persisted. That
> had been arrived at, Hagelin responded with just a trace of irritation, by
> means of a "scientifically rigorous time-series analysis" that included not
> only crime data, but such factors as weather and fluctuations in Earth's
> magnetic field.
The reporter had obviously not bothered to inform himself about
the study. The protocols had been registered well in advance,
including that the crime rate would be measured against predicted
levels, which is the only way to tell whether it had been affected by
the "intervention" (i.e., the TM gathering). Unless Parks is ignorant
of statistical methodology, he's well aware of this, yet he tries to
make it seem ridiculous and fails to mention that the protocols had
been well publicized before the study period commenced.
Also, fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field were not used as
a factor in the researchers' conclusions. Someone on the
independent review board (which had helped plan the study
protocols) had suggested using them, but the researchers tested
the variations and determined that there was no correlation
between them and the crime rate. Unless Parks never bothered
to read the study he's critiquing, he knows this as well.
> The belief of the Maharishi's followers in the power of TM had not been
> influenced in the slightest by the outcome of the "experiment."
Quite possibly because the rate of violent crime *did* go down
significantly during the study period (the officer in charge of
crime statistics for the D.C. Police Department was on the
independent review board and signed off on the study's crime
rate results, although he would not commit himself to the
conclusion that the TM gathering was the reason for the sharp
decline in violent crime).
This was
> pseudoscience--all the talk of "string theory" and "consciousness fields"
> and "time series analysis" was technobabble, meant to give the appearance of
> science.
String theory and consciousness fields in this context may be
pseudoscience or technobabble, but time-series analysis is most
certainly not. Again, Parks's assertion is disingenuous.
Too bad he had to misrepresent the study to use it as an example
of his otherwise perfectly respectable thesis about belief.
will...@yahoo.com
> > reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
> >
jst...@panix.com wrote:
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
No, when you look at all the 600 studies you will find many of the
reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
>From the TM org:
"Over 600 scientific studies at more than 200 independent research
institutions in 35 countries during the past 40 years confirm that the
technique works-and brings remarkable benefits to people around the
world." - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Source:
jst...@panix.com
No, I'm afraid we couldn't, Vaj. Occam's razor only works when
you know the relevant facts. In this case you're seriously uninformed.
If you wanted to *become* informed, you could do a Google search
in alt.meditation.transcendental for "Markovsky," click to arrange the
listings in date order, and read them. What you'll find is that
Markovsky
was treated with respect at first, *until* he blew his cover and
revealed
himself to be distinctly an anti-TMer.
jst...@panix.com
Bhairitu
Vaj
On 1/24/06 1:18 PM, in article
1138126687.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "will...@yahoo.com"
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> No, when you look at all the 600 studies you will find many of the
>>> reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
>>>
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
>> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
>> not affiliated with the TM org.
>>
> No, when you look at all the 600 studies you will find many of the
> reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
This is extremely misleading. Most if not all of these people ARE Tmer's,
although they may not be faculty at MIU/MUM. Therefore they are
biased--kinda like an oil company sponsoring research on global warming.
You also then need to know who's *sponsoring* the study--where's the money
comin' from.
Meet a few more criteria and it might be considered unbiased, but I believe
you'll find most of these are Tmer's.
homeseeker
these answers reveal.
It seems to me that the civil records in Fairfield and Washington DC
should enable one to make an obvious conclusion.
In Fairfield those records show that the results were falsified by TM
researchers. From the replies reported here I can't figure out what
the Washington DC records show.
Because they falsified the records once I tend to disbelieve all the TM
results. Am I wrong?
jst...@panix.com
homeseeker wrote:
> Thank you for your interest in replying to my inquiry. What a mess
> these answers reveal.
>
> It seems to me that the civil records in Fairfield and Washington DC
> should enable one to make an obvious conclusion.
>
> In Fairfield those records show that the results were falsified by TM
> researchers.
Not necessarily. That's what Vaj claims James Randi claims, but
it's highly questionable. If Vaj would quote the book on this point,
I'll show how Randi's wording is in fact ambiguous about what he
found.
From the replies reported here I can't figure out what
> the Washington DC records show.
The D.C. police records of violent crime show that it decreased
significantly during the study period (except for murders, which
increased). The question isn't whether the data on violent crime
is accurate--it is, and it's publicly available--but whether the TM
gathering actually caused the decrease.
> Because they falsified the records once
*If* they falsified the records.
> I tend to disbelieve all the TM results. Am I wrong?
You should be skeptical of all the TM results, as you should be of
the results of any study that hasn't been independently replicated.
You should also be skeptical of would-be debunkers. because
their analysis may be subject to at least as much bias as those
of the proprietary researchers (James Randi being a case in
point).
Vaj
On 1/24/06 2:31 PM, in article
1138131087.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
<pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
Well, at least proceed with extreme caution. It's hard to accept something
as unbiased which is used to promote and market whatever items they happen
to be selling.
Since a chronic problem with close disciples of Mahesh Varma is that they
need to adjust their thinking to his (if they want to maintain close access
to him), there will inevitably be times when CEO Mahesh will say: "change
this". When a scientific researcher does this he comprises not only the
truth, but his own integrity. A recent example was given of this on another
TM-related list where a friend of one of John Hagelin's research assistants
explained to him that Hagelin had insisted there was not sufficient
scientific evidence to support "pure consciousness" as a unified field.
Mahesh disagreed and told him 'change it or I'll get someone else'.
Hagelin changed it. Now almost everything in the TMO "runs" on this central
lie and deception.
There are numerous other examples in the TMO. Keep in mind, some people will
do anything for their guru or for their cause.
Markovsky's questions are good ones we should all ask ourselves:
Who Conducts the Research and Who Pays For It?
Why the infrequency of Negative Effects when they are known to occur?
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
> On 1/24/06 2:31 PM, in article
> 1138131087.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your interest in replying to my inquiry. What a mess
> > these answers reveal.
> >
> > It seems to me that the civil records in Fairfield and Washington DC
> > should enable one to make an obvious conclusion.
> >
> > In Fairfield those records show that the results were falsified by TM
> > researchers. From the replies reported here I can't figure out what
> > the Washington DC records show.
> >
> > Because they falsified the records once I tend to disbelieve all the TM
> > results. Am I wrong?
>
> Well, at least proceed with extreme caution. It's hard to accept something
> as unbiased which is used to promote and market whatever items they happen
> to be selling.
On the other hand, that something is used to promote and market does
not
automatically mean that it's not valid. You need to look at this kind
of thing
on a case-by-case basis.
> Since a chronic problem with close disciples of Mahesh Varma
(Vaj means Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.)
is that they
> need to adjust their thinking to his (if they want to maintain close access
> to him), there will inevitably be times when CEO Mahesh will say: "change
> this". When a scientific researcher does this he comprises not only the
> truth, but his own integrity. A recent example was given of this on another
> TM-related list where a friend of one of John Hagelin's research assistants
> explained to him that Hagelin had insisted there was not sufficient
> scientific evidence to support "pure consciousness" as a unified field.
> Mahesh disagreed and told him 'change it or I'll get someone else'.
Here's what the person *actually* wrote:
"As I recall, she said John was under pressure from Maharishi
to tour the country, telling scientists that consciousness was
indeed the unified field. John resisted, saying his research
partners would frown upon it, and more to the point, it wasn't
such a slam-dunk parallel. But Maharishi persisted, ultimately
saying, If you won't do it, I'll find someone who will. So John
did it."
> Hagelin changed it. Now almost everything in the TMO "runs" on this central
> lie and deception.
Also be very alert to the use of words to mislead. For example,
that there is not enough scientific evidence to support a premise
does *not* mean, contrary to Vaj's assertion above, that it is
therefore a "lie and deception."
And in any case, overstating the certainty of a speculative premise
is hardly the same thing as fudging the data in a scientific study.
> There are numerous other examples in the TMO. Keep in mind, some people will
> do anything for their guru or for their cause.
And other people will do anything to destroy that guru or cause.
Again: Be skeptical of the debunkers just as much as of that which
they're attempting to debunk, because they are likely to have their
own biases.
And some of them are even willing to deliberately misrepresent and
mislead in the service of their agenda.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj wrote:
<snip>
> Well, at least proceed with extreme caution. It's hard to accept something
> as unbiased which is used to promote and market whatever items they happen
> to be selling.
Note, by the way, that Vaj has failed to respond to my corrections
of his errors in a previous post.
What might he be selling?
John Manning
His ego? He comes off like he knows everything about everything. All the
while doing everything he can to discredit TM - and offering nothing
practicable otherwise.
Peter
<jst...@panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1138117496....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
None whatsoever. The connection is between humans and alcohol. One of my
friends is or was a leader in a center for Tibetan Buddhism he has told me
that many Tibetan Buddhist Lamas has a drinking problem, and the Tibetan
community in general has a drinking problem, not unlike the problems that
the innuits or eskimos has in Greenland and in the arctic areas. He gave
several names on Lamas that died from alcoholism.
Vaj.
On 1/24/06 3:55 PM, in article
1138136118....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
<jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Vaj wrote:
>> On 1/24/06 2:31 PM, in article
>> 1138131087.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
>> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for your interest in replying to my inquiry. What a mess
>>> these answers reveal.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the civil records in Fairfield and Washington DC
>>> should enable one to make an obvious conclusion.
>>>
>>> In Fairfield those records show that the results were falsified by TM
>>> researchers. From the replies reported here I can't figure out what
>>> the Washington DC records show.
>>>
>>> Because they falsified the records once I tend to disbelieve all the TM
>>> results. Am I wrong?
>>
>> Well, at least proceed with extreme caution. It's hard to accept something
>> as unbiased which is used to promote and market whatever items they happen
>> to be selling.
>
> On the other hand, that something is used to promote and market does
> not
> automatically mean that it's not valid. You need to look at this kind
> of thing
> on a case-by-case basis.
Absolutely. There are some things that are worth keeping--and the trend in
meditational research that TM helped vitalize is a good thing.
>
>> Since a chronic problem with close disciples of Mahesh Varma
>
> (Vaj means Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.)
>
> is that they
>> need to adjust their thinking to his (if they want to maintain close access
>> to him), there will inevitably be times when CEO Mahesh will say: "change
>> this". When a scientific researcher does this he comprises not only the
>> truth, but his own integrity. A recent example was given of this on another
>> TM-related list where a friend of one of John Hagelin's research assistants
>> explained to him that Hagelin had insisted there was not sufficient
>> scientific evidence to support "pure consciousness" as a unified field.
>> Mahesh disagreed and told him 'change it or I'll get someone else'.
>
> Here's what the person *actually* wrote:
>
> "As I recall, she said John was under pressure from Maharishi
> to tour the country, telling scientists that consciousness was
> indeed the unified field. John resisted, saying his research
> partners would frown upon it, and more to the point, it wasn't
> such a slam-dunk parallel. But Maharishi persisted, ultimately
> saying, If you won't do it, I'll find someone who will. So John
> did it."
Thanks for sharing that.
I wonder if she was one of the numerous students John had <ahem>
extracurricular activities with?
>
>> Hagelin changed it. Now almost everything in the TMO "runs" on this central
>> lie and deception.
>
> Also be very alert to the use of words to mislead. For example,
> that there is not enough scientific evidence to support a premise
> does *not* mean, contrary to Vaj's assertion above, that it is
> therefore a "lie and deception."
>
> And in any case, overstating the certainty of a speculative premise
> is hardly the same thing as fudging the data in a scientific study.
It really will depend on the underlying intent and motivation of the
action(s) which were used to present their research.
I feel it is fair to say that we may never really know the extent to which
TMO research was "bent" to a particular end. Think "VIOXX" of consciousness
and you'll have the basic idea.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> On 1/24/06 3:55 PM, in article
> 1138136118....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
> I wonder if she was one of the numerous students John had <ahem>
> extracurricular activities with?
Yeah, Vaj, maybe he dumped her and she made up this story
in revenge to discredit him.
> >> Hagelin changed it. Now almost everything in the TMO "runs" on this central
> >> lie and deception.
> >
> > Also be very alert to the use of words to mislead. For example,
> > that there is not enough scientific evidence to support a premise
> > does *not* mean, contrary to Vaj's assertion above, that it is
> > therefore a "lie and deception."
> >
> > And in any case, overstating the certainty of a speculative premise
> > is hardly the same thing as fudging the data in a scientific study.
>
> It really will depend on the underlying intent and motivation of the
> action(s) which were used to present their research.
No, it really won't.
> I feel it is fair to say that we may never really know the extent to which
> TMO research was "bent" to a particular end. Think "VIOXX" of consciousness
> and you'll have the basic idea.
<snicker>
R-i-i-i-g-h-t.
(Note that Vaj still hasn't responded to my corrections of the
errors in his earlier post.)
jst...@panix.com
John Manning wrote:
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
> > Vaj wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Well, at least proceed with extreme caution. It's hard to accept something
> >>as unbiased which is used to promote and market whatever items they happen
> >>to be selling.
> >
> >
> > Note, by the way, that Vaj has failed to respond to my corrections
> > of his errors in a previous post.
> >
> > What might he be selling?
>
> His ego? He comes off like he knows everything about everything.
Which is amusing given how often he's mistaken...
will...@yahoo.com
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
will...@yahoo.com
> TM is neither a yagya or a kumbh.
>
meditation with a puja of various lengths, enjoyed at mass gathering of
groups. The practice of TM is tantra par excellence.
jst...@panix.com
willy...@yahoo.com wrote:
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
> > Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> > not affiliated with the TM org.
> >
> "...more than 200 independent research institutions in 35 countries
> during the past 40 years confirm that the technique works-and brings
> remarkable benefits to people around the world." - Maharishi Mahesh
> Yogi
Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
not affiliated with the TM org.
>
> Source:
>
> http://www.tm.org/discover/research/index.html
will...@yahoo.com
> > during the past 40 years confirm that the technique works-and brings
> > remarkable benefits to people around the world." - Maharishi Mahesh
> > Yogi
>
jst...@panix.com wrote:
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
"...more than 200 independent research institutions in 35 countries"
to me. A "few" sounds like ony two. Clearly there are many more than a
few, if the Maharishi is to be believed.
> > Source:
> >
> > http://www.tm.org/discover/research/index.html
jst...@panix.com
Bhairitu
pundi...@gmail.com
> > "...more than 200 independent research institutions in 35 countries"
> > have confirmed that the technique works. More than 200 sounds like MANY
> > to me. A "few" sounds like ony two. Clearly there are many more than a
> > few, if the Maharishi is to be believed.
> >
jst...@panix.com wrote:
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
independent research institutions in 35 countries have confirmed that
link below.
Source:
jst...@panix.com
will...@yahoo.com
> You just made that up.
>
deserving of a response. For your information, I've attended dozens of
yajnas performed by Swami Bhaktivedanta Saraswati in India. For the
past ten years I've observed at least twenty yajnas performed at
Barsana Dham, under the direction of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. The
yajnas I've observed would make your puny little dhuni fire out in
Oakland look like an ant hill.
You need to get some smarts, Mr. Bharat2 - according to the Upanishads
there's no higher sacrifice than transcendental experience, in which
the sadhak performs the yajna of the droping of all mental thought.
Shakya the Muni and Maharishi Patanjali agree with this.
Yajna means 'oblation', a magical sacrifice - the devine sacrifice of
the cosmic Purusha - the model for all sacrifices. The purpose of the
sacrifice was to ensure fertility and the well-being of the individual,
his family and domestic animals, and ultimately the whole community as
enumerated in the Grhya-sutras.
In fact, Sri Buddha blew to bits the presumed efficacy of the burnt
offerings of the Vedic Brahmins! It is a fact, needing no further
explanation, that magical sacrifices, including all cermonial
performances and shows, Tantric or Vedic, are totally ineffective and
useless against birth, death and rebirth. Sacrifice your own thoughts
man, be free!
Bhairitu
or you would not say anything so stupid "TM is yagyas and khumbs." At
least you provided a good laugh for everyone there as you walked around
with your head up your ass.
will...@yahoo.com
> > deserving of a response. For your information, I've attended dozens of
> > yajnas performed by Swami Bhaktivedanta Saraswati in India. For the
> > past ten years I've observed at least twenty yajnas performed at
> > Barsana Dham, under the direction of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. The
> > yajnas I've observed would make your puny little dhuni fire out in
> > Oakland look like an ant hill.
> >
> > You need to get some smarts, Mr. Bharat2 - according to the Upanishads
> > there's no higher sacrifice than transcendental experience, in which
> > the sadhak performs the yajna of the droping of all mental thought.
> > Shakya the Muni and Maharishi Patanjali agree with this.
> >
> > Yajna means 'oblation', a magical sacrifice - the devine sacrifice of
> > the cosmic Purusha - the model for all sacrifices. The purpose of the
> > sacrifice was to ensure fertility and the well-being of the individual,
> > his family and domestic animals, and ultimately the whole community as
> > enumerated in the Grhya-sutras.
> >
> > In fact, Sri Buddha blew to bits the presumed efficacy of the burnt
> > offerings of the Vedic Brahmins! It is a fact, needing no further
> > explanation, that magical sacrifices, including all cermonial
> > performances and shows, Tantric or Vedic, are totally ineffective and
> > useless against birth, death and rebirth. Sacrifice your own thoughts
> > man, be free!
> >
> You must have had your head in its usual place when you attended these
> or you would not say anything so stupid "TM is yagyas and khumbs." At
> least you provided a good laugh for everyone there as you walked around
> with your head up your ass.
>
will...@yahoo.com
> > independent research institutions in 35 countries have confirmed that
> > the technique works. In my opinion, that's many, not a *very* few.
> >
jst...@panix.com wrote:
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
of Health (NIH) has spent more than $21 million conducting research on
the beneficial effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on
heart disease alone. The NIH is not affiliated with the TM org. Below
are just some of the many instituitions that have conducted research on
the efficacy of TM - over 80 major educational institutions! None of
the following institutions are affiliated with the TM org:
Boston University
Cornell University
George Washington University
Harvard Medical School
Harvard University
Indiana University
Lawrence Livermore National University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ohio State University
Pennsylvania State University
Princeton University
Purdue University
Stanford University
State University College of New York
(at Brockport, Buffalo and New Paltz)
University of Arkansas
University of California
(at Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Santa Cruz)
University of Chicago
University of Colorado Medical Center
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Kansas
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts
University of Michigan Medical School
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Oklahoma
University of Pittsburg
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee
University of Texas (at Austin and El Paso)
University of Virginia Medical Center
University of Washington
West Virginia University
Western Kentucky University
Western Washington State College
Xavier University
Yale Medical School
jst...@panix.com
will...@yahoo.com
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
>
According to the Maharishi, over 200 of the studies were conducted by
teams unaffiliated with the TM org. 200 in my book is *many*.
jst...@panix.com
Bhairitu
Chicken Willy flew the coop,
prk, prk, prk, prk, prk,
Because nobody would believe his poop.
will...@yahoo.com
> Because nobody would believe his poop.
>
of Hinduism, the Sanskrit term yajna means "an 'oblation', 'sacrifice',
or 'worship'. The sacrifice was magical rather than religious. The
purpose of the sacrifice was to endure the fertility and well-being of
the individual, his family and domestic animals, and ultimately the
devine - or superhuman- powers of nature. The sacrifice was an offering
to the gods, to sustain them in their tasks of maintaining the world
and directing its manifold generative activities, and hence they were
invoked to be present" 342).
Work cited:
'Harper's Dictionary of Hinduism'
It's mythology, folklore, philosophy literature, and history.
By Margaret and James Stutley
Harper & Row, 1984
The Maharishi Yagya program consists of Vedic performances by
traditional Vedic pandits in India. According to this ancient
knowledge, a Maharishi Yagya procedure, performed before the danger
arises, can help neutralize negative influences so that they do not
reach the individual, and life remains in tune with Natural Law. It is
used to help avert undesirable circumstances or to enhance the success
of an undertaking. Every Maharishi Yagya performance brings more
Support of Nature to the individual and enlivens Natural Law for the
benefit of the whole society.
The Maharishi Yagya program:
http://www.maharishi.org/vedic_astrology/index.html
The Elements of Yajna:
http://www.bharatavarsha.com/iyer/yajna.html
Yagya, Yajna Ritual, sacrifice:
http://www.paulmason.info/themaharishi/mmyglossary.htm
will...@yahoo.com
> He comes off like he knows everything about everything.
>
Subject: Re: Promise..defined.
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-02-19 18:37:11 PST
No TM initiate (and I've taught about 5000) was ever asked by me to
*promise* not to reveal their mantra. I was trained directly by
Maharishi to encourage initiates to not speak the mantra out loud
because it might weaken its effectiveness. There was NEVER any promise
required from initiates to not reveal their mantras that was taught to
me from Maharishi in the instructions that he gave us at Estes Park, CO
where he made me a TM teacher.
LawsonE
"homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1137889250....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> That bad eh.
>
> I found one inquiry to verify the good effects on Fairfield's crime
> rate and crop production sreported by the org. What it disclosed was
> thatl the data were made up.
>
> Certainly the experiment in Washinton DC should have outside
> verification if it is true or not true that the violent crime rate went
> down 27%.
>
That wasn't the conclusion. The study has been published and various
criticisms of have been also. For the TMO's take on the controversial study,
check John Hagelin's website(s).
LawsonE
<pundi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137947806.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Well, that makes you look pretty stupid.
>> >
> John Manning wrote:
>> I never really bought into the `Maharishi Effect` as currently
>> described. But TM is as I said, from my own experience and the many
>> hundreds whom I instructed. What`s stupid about that?
>>
> Stupid to believe that a relaxation technique could lead you on a
> stairway to heaven? That IS the Maharishi Effect. Bring in the clowns!
>
What is relaxation save anti-entropy? What is heaven save the ultimate
anti-entropy?
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1137891291....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> homeseeker wrote:
>> That bad eh.
>>
>> I found one inquiry to verify the good effects on Fairfield's crime
>> rate and crop production sreported by the org. What it disclosed was
>> thatl the data were made up.
>>
>> Certainly the experiment in Washinton DC should have outside
>> verification if it is true or not true that the violent crime rate went
>> down 27%.
>
> knowledge, however, nobody has analyzed the researchers'
> statistical methodology, which would be the only way to "verify"
> the results they claimed, i.e., that the drop in the crime rate
> during the period of the TM gathering was *caused* by the
> gathering.
>
Barry M. may have, but his critique wasn't published in the same journal as
the original study because the editors and publishers basically wanted to
put the infamy of publishing the original study in the first place behind
them. I believe Barry's paper WAS published elsewhere, but I haven't read
it.
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1137951622....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> will...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> homeseeker wrote:
>> > What it disclosed was that the data were made up.
>> >
>> None of the data was made up. Many of the studies were conducted by
>> teams not affiliated with the TM org.
>
> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
> not affiliated with the TM org.
I don't know of any studies of the ME which were conducted by people not
affiliated with the TMO. The DC study's data allegedly comes from public
sources but I don't know that anyone has ever bothered to go back to the raw
sources and re-evaluate the findings.
>
>
> For example, Herbert Benson of
>> Harvard University. You'll find all the verification on the results of
>> experiments on the Maharishi effect here, along with information on the
>> TM technique, research studies, and other advanced programmes:
>>
>> http://www.tm.org/
>>
>> Herbert Nenson's Mind/Body Medical Institute:
>> http://www.mbmi.org/home/
>
LawsonE
<pundi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138043943.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
>> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
>> not affiliated with the TM org.
>>
> reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
>
But not the ME research, which is what this thread is about.
LawsonE
"Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
news:BFFBE826.28AF%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
>
>
>
> On 1/24/06 1:18 PM, in article
> 1138126687.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> "will...@yahoo.com"
> <will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> No, when you look at all the 600 studies you will find many of the
>>>> reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
>>>>
>> jst...@panix.com wrote:
>>> Actually *very* few of the studies were conducted by teams
>>> not affiliated with the TM org.
>>>
>> No, when you look at all the 600 studies you will find many of the
>> reports were conducted by teams not affiliated with the TM org.
>
>
> although they may not be faculty at MIU/MUM. Therefore they are
> biased--kinda like an oil company sponsoring research on global warming.
>
> You also then need to know who's *sponsoring* the study--where's the money
> comin' from.
>
> Meet a few more criteria and it might be considered unbiased, but I
> believe
> you'll find most of these are Tmer's.
>
The most important studies on TM's health effects HAVE been published by
teams comprised of TMers and non-TMers from other universities and paid for
by government grant money. However, the original thread was about the ME
studies, which are ALL TMO-sponsored.
LawsonE
"Bhairitu" <nooz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QQRAf.986$1n4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Peter wrote:
>> "homeseeker" <pogg...@msn.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
>>>experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I do not think that anyone outside TMO believe in the MMY Effect. And if
>> the
>> MMY Effect really exsisted other groups would use it, quite obvious. And
>> if
>> the TM technique had that capacity, similar groups would use the tech for
>> sure. And it is strange that meditation societies similar to TM are not
>> having any result on the collective mind. I agree with the other guy that
>> the TM tech is in itself terricfic good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The Maharishi Effect isn't original. It's the same effect as yagyas and
> kumbhs. They just stole the effect and put a brand name on it.
Heh. Gravity isn't original either, but its called "Newton's Law of Gravity"
for a reason. Also, Maharishi Effect is a pun: getting a bunch of Maharishis
(sidhas) together has an effect.
LawsonE
TM-as-yagya isn't far-fetched at all.
LawsonE
>>
>>>I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
>>>experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>>>
>>
>>
>> a
>> naive person, then you're on the hook for about 50 grand over 10 years.
>> Kiss your family goodbye.
>>
>> I had a good friend who took part in "scientific studies" at MIU in the
>> eighties. She was a long time meditator who had a couple of weird things
>> about her: She didn't get any results, and she died of cancer at a young
>> age. Other than that, TM worked fine for her.
>>
>> See, she told me that when she failed to get results they kicked her out
>> of
>> the "scientific studies". This is absolutely the correct way to conduct
>> objective "scientific studies" in the TM world.
>>
>> The other thing was that when I seized this information to make a stink
>> about it she was mortified and wished she hadn't told me. Despite being
>> *tooled* by these people she was in such deep denial that she felt
>> compelled
>> to continue with the fraudulent lifestyle.
>>
>> It's all bullshit. How's that for plain English?
>>
>> And I had Maharishi tell me a lie right to my face about what he was
>> doing
>> with all the money. He lied, and the lie is now known because what he
>> promised he would do with all the money never happened, and never will
>> happen. The money is in blind family trusts in India and everybody on
>> this
>> list either knows it or should know of they are dumb as rocks.
>>
>>
>>
> If you were a Governor and at the meeting with Governors when Maharishi
> visited Seattle in the summer of 1978 then you know he made a few changes
> from an original stance about religion. When questioned he merely said
> the previous stance was a "psychological construct." Seems he has a few
> of those in his bag. :)
MMY's stance on religion is that TM is the missing link of religious
practice. I don't think he's ever changed that fundamental stance. At least,
not since the first edition of SOBAL was published.
LawsonE
>
>
>
> On 1/21/06 6:20 PM, in article
> 1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
>> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>
> duplicated
> nor were the actual numbers independently verified. The only thing it is
> good for is as a sales pitch for the TMO.
>
> One TM study by a MUM physics professor, Dr. Robert Rabinoff, claimed that
> the Maharishi effect was responsible for reducing crime and accidents
> while
> simultaneously increasing crop production in the vicinity of Maharishi
> University in Fairfield, Iowa. James Randi checked with the Fairfield
> Police
> Dept, the Iowa Dept of Agriculture, and the Dept of Motor Vehicles and
> found
> that the Rabinoff¹s data was invented (Randi 1982, 99-108).
>
I think that Bob's study was more than a tad optimistic in its
interpretatiojn of the facts, but I doubt if he made up the statistics.
> In the "famous" Wash. DC study, violent crime actually increased.
Nope. Murder increased dramnatically for 1 week then went down the next week
and overall was unchanged. The other 3 variables studied all went down in
absolute numbers, and by crime/population. To get a statistically
significant result, they had to massage with temperature-related statistics,
but they had already said they were going to do that so it isn't as big an
issue as you apparently wish it was.
>
> If you are interested in a real application of the pacification of
> negative
> tendencies in human populations, I recommend you read _Inner Revolution_
> by
> Robert Thurman.
>
>
>
LawsonE
> On 1/21/06 6:20 PM, in article
> 1137885637....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for verification from outside the TM org on results of
>> experiments on the Maharishi effect.
>>
>
>
> Maharishi Effect
>
> by Barry Markovsky
>
> I just discovered this newsgroup yesterday and spent most of the day
> reading
> the various TM-related exchanges that were posted over the last week or
> so.
> (Can anyone tell me what happens to older postings?) I am new to this, so
> let me know if I breach norms or otherwise offend.
Is this a really ancient letter by Barry or is it a reference to FFL? He was
a poster for quite a while on A.M.T. and we spent an afternoon together in
Tucson many years ago after meeting on A.M.T. while he was in Tucson
attending a conference on consciousness...
jst...@panix.com
It was published, but Barry never got hold of the researchers'
raw data from their statistical analyses, remember?
jst...@panix.com
That's his initial post to sci.skeptic, before he ever turned up here.
Vaj seems to have neglected to include either the newsgroup or
the date.
LawsonE
> On 1/24/06 12:00 PM, in article
> 1138122021....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Also it should be noted that while Markovsky portrayed himself as an
>> neutral researcher in this initial post to sci.skeptic, this was just a
>> pose. His subsequent contributions to alt.meditation.transcendental,
>> as well as media interviews and other material, have demonstrated
>> that he is firmly in the anti-TM camp, and that his interest in the TM
>> studies has been from the start with a view to debunking them.
>
> Or, using Occams' razor, we could more reasonably conclude that he was
> instead reacting to the incoherent and hostile quality often displayed
> here
> by certain zealots.
>
I had lunch with Barry in Tucson many years ago. He definitely has certain
biases, although he's not completely aware of them himself. Very nice guy
but he and the MUM researchers definitely don't get along. This is likely at
least as much THEIR fault as his (probably much moretheir fault), and he's
certainly correct to be suspicious of any research on TM done exclusively at
MUM since there's a huge expectation of positive results there and pressure
to only show such results. That said, the ME research isn't done any more so
its moot save when talking about fund-raising efforts to bring Pundits to
Iowa or whatever.
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1138128431.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vaj wrote:
>> On 1/24/06 12:00 PM, in article
>> 1138122021....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "jst...@panix.com"
>> <jst...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Also it should be noted that while Markovsky portrayed himself as an
>> > neutral researcher in this initial post to sci.skeptic, this was just a
>> > pose. His subsequent contributions to alt.meditation.transcendental,
>> > as well as media interviews and other material, have demonstrated
>> > that he is firmly in the anti-TM camp, and that his interest in the TM
>> > studies has been from the start with a view to debunking them.
>>
>> Or, using Occams' razor, we could more reasonably conclude that he was
>> instead reacting to the incoherent and hostile quality often displayed
>> here
>> by certain zealots.
>
> you know the relevant facts. In this case you're seriously uninformed.
>
> If you wanted to *become* informed, you could do a Google search
> in alt.meditation.transcendental for "Markovsky," click to arrange the
> listings in date order, and read them. What you'll find is that
> Markovsky
> was treated with respect at first, *until* he blew his cover and
> revealed
> himself to be distinctly an anti-TMer.
>
I'd say more like "anti-cult," with his assumption being that TM was/is a
seriously negative example of one. Recall that he was editor of the online
anti-cult journal that Margaret Sanger started, which was published by the
trancenet people.
LawsonE
>
>
[...]
> [13] Beyond the purview of this critique are the moral and ethical issues
> that arise when meditators purport to alter experimentally the moods,
> thought processes, and behaviors of others without their informed consent,
> and when the TM movement assigns itself the responsibility of manipulating
> the substrate of all existence.
>
Thanks for publishing this Vaj. Barry's own bias shines through in this
footnote. Does anyone seriously think the TMO and the MIU researchers were
being morally unethical for participating in/studying the effects of these
world peace assemblies because they failed to obtain informed consent of the
population of DC or Lebanon/Israel, or of the world itself, while
participating in/designing studies to study the effects of said world peace
assemblies?
And, for that matter, should the individual sidha worry about the moral and
ethical implications of intending to manipulate the substrate of all
existence whenever he practices the yogic flying technique?
jst...@panix.com
He was *going* to be the editor (and I'm not sure it was going to be
online as opposed to on paper), but Sanger shut the whole project
down when she realized John Knapp of Trancenet was going to use
it to further his own anti-TM agenda. And this was well after Barry M.
had started bashing TM on alt.m.t. I strongly suspect Knapp got him
to take it on by promising him he could publish all the anti-TM
articles
he wanted.
Remember also that Trancenet was begun by Knapp *only* as a
vehicle for TM-bashing. He branched out after a while, but initially
it was just for anti-TM material. In both cases I think they
subsequently took a more general anti-cult stance as a cover, so
they wouldn't appear to be obsessed with TM.
jst...@panix.com
It's also an utterly absurd position for Barry to take when he's a firm
DISbeliever in any such manipulation being possible.
LawsonE
>
>
>
> On 1/24/06 2:31 PM, in article
> 1138131087.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "homeseeker"
> <pogg...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for your interest in replying to my inquiry. What a mess
>> these answers reveal.
>>
>> It seems to me that the civil records in Fairfield and Washington DC
>> should enable one to make an obvious conclusion.
>>
>> In Fairfield those records show that the results were falsified by TM
>> researchers. From the replies reported here I can't figure out what
>> the Washington DC records show.
>>
>> Because they falsified the records once I tend to disbelieve all the TM
>> results. Am I wrong?
>
> Well, at least proceed with extreme caution. It's hard to accept something
> as unbiased which is used to promote and market whatever items they happen
> to be selling.
>
> Since a chronic problem with close disciples of Mahesh Varma is that they
> need to adjust their thinking to his (if they want to maintain close
> access
> to him), there will inevitably be times when CEO Mahesh will say: "change
> this". When a scientific researcher does this he comprises not only the
> truth, but his own integrity. A recent example was given of this on
> another
> TM-related list where a friend of one of John Hagelin's research
> assistants
> explained to him that Hagelin had insisted there was not sufficient
> scientific evidence to support "pure consciousness" as a unified field.
> Mahesh disagreed and told him 'change it or I'll get someone else'.
wha? Hagelin's first famous philosphical paper was entitled "Is
consciousness the Unified Field: a field-theorest's perspective." It was a
very controversial paper when it was published, but no-one challenged the
claims made in the paper that i am aware of, though the conclusions were
never accepted outside the TMO.
This was published more than 20 years ago. Just when did John Hagelin's
research assistant explain to the friend that Hagelin didn't believe in this
proposition? It was part of the basis of his deciding to move to MIU. That
and the mainstream scientific success of Flipped SU(5) after Hagelin had
tweaked it to become more in-line with MMY's vedic cosmology theory.
>
> Hagelin changed it. Now almost everything in the TMO "runs" on this
> central
> lie and deception.
You're seriously misinterpretting/misremembering what you heard. Hagelin has
been a true believer since he was an undergraduate student-- well before his
work at CERN as a post-grad.
>
> There are numerous other examples in the TMO. Keep in mind, some people
> will
> do anything for their guru or for their cause.
>
> Markovsky's questions are good ones we should all ask ourselves:
>
> Who Conducts the Research and Who Pays For It?
>
> Why the infrequency of Negative Effects when they are known to occur?
>
Perhaps because the frequency of replicable negative effects is so low
outside certain special populations like long-term residents of mental
institutes? Since the TMO doesn't attempt to teach TM to residents of mental
insitutes, it isn't surprising that there is little on-going research on
such effects.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
<snip>
> I had lunch with Barry in Tucson many years ago. He definitely has certain
> biases, although he's not completely aware of them himself. Very nice guy
Barry M. can be an extremely nice guy when he wants to get
something from you. I had extensive email exchanges with him
before he blew his cover, and he was just as sweet as he could
possibly be. He's very much aware of his biases (although of
course he doesn't think of them as such), but he's very good at
*hiding* them when it serves his purposes.
> but he and the MUM researchers definitely don't get along. This is likely at
> least as much THEIR fault as his (probably much moretheir fault)
FWIW, from the abstract of a rebuttal to Barry's paper ("EHT" for
"Evaluating Heterodox Theories," the paper's title), by Orme-Johnson:
"In a footnote, EHT says that the authors of the Israel study would not
send them the original data, when in fact they were sent all the data
in graphic form, which was also published as an appendix when the
original paper was reprinted in a research anthology in 1990. Moreover,
the EHT authors were told that they would also be sent the data in
spreadsheet form as soon as they publicly retracted false statements
that they had made about the research in television interviews and in
the popular press."
http://www.invinciblemilitary.org/articles/heterodox_theory_rebuttal.html
>, and he's
> certainly correct to be suspicious of any research on TM done exclusively at
> MUM since there's a huge expectation of positive results there and pressure
> to only show such results.
Absolutely.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
> "Vaj" <vajra...@not-shunyata.org> wrote in message
> news:BFFBF657.28B6%vajra...@not-shunyata.org...
> > A recent example was given of this on another
> > TM-related list where a friend of one of John Hagelin's research
> > assistants
> > explained to him that Hagelin had insisted there was not sufficient
> > scientific evidence to support "pure consciousness" as a unified field.
> > Mahesh disagreed and told him 'change it or I'll get someone else'.
>
> wha? Hagelin's first famous philosphical paper was entitled "Is
> consciousness the Unified Field: a field-theorest's perspective." It was a
> very controversial paper when it was published, but no-one challenged the
> claims made in the paper that i am aware of, though the conclusions were
> never accepted outside the TMO.
>
> This was published more than 20 years ago. Just when did John Hagelin's
> research assistant explain to the friend that Hagelin didn't believe in this
> proposition?
Supposedly the paper was published shortly after the research
assistant's account.
But that isn't really what the post said, although it was a bit
ambiguous. Not believing in a proposition is one thing; believing
in it but recognizing the scientific evidence is inadequate to
convince other scientists is quite another.
Here's the quote from the FFL post:
"As I recall, she said John was under pressure from Maharishi
to tour the country, telling scientists that consciousness was
indeed the unified field. John resisted, saying his research
partners would frown upon it, and more to the point, it wasn't
such a slam-dunk parallel. But Maharishi persisted, ultimately
saying, If you won't do it, I'll find someone who will. So John
did it."
Not a matter of "changing" things, contrary to what Vaj claims
(in an effort to equate this incident with the notion that TM
researchers fudge their data), but rather of being reluctant to
go out and proclaim it to the scientific world in a lecture tour
without better evidence.
jst...@panix.com
LawsonE wrote:
<snip>
> Barry M. may have, but his critique wasn't published in the same journal as
> the original study because the editors and publishers basically wanted to
> put the infamy of publishing the original study in the first place behind
> them. I believe Barry's paper WAS published elsewhere, but I haven't read
> it.
It's available on Trancenet. I posted a link to it in this thread some
posts
back.
LawsonE
<jst...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:1138394628.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That was for the Lebanon study. Didn't he do one for the DC study also?