TM Ayurveda Article Comes Under Fire (Hinduism Today)
Lawson English
AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <jcookCy...@netcom.com>, jc...@netcom.com (James Cook)
: writes:
[apparently Mr. Skolnick doesn't know how to quote anyone using his
newsreader. The following comments are from Mr. Skolnick and NOT Mr. Cook]
: Mr. Cook's comments about my article unfortunately are flawed by numerous
: mistatements and inaccuracies. For example, the article does not say that
: Chopra owned any company selling MAV products. It does point out that
: Chopra was formerly the sole stock holder of MAPI Inc. The article did
How is it possible for someone to be the "sole stockholder of MAPI"
[which is the sole distributer of MAV products] and *not* say "that
Chopra owned any company selling MAV products?"
: identify a number of other conflicts of interest of which the editors of
: JAMA had not be aware when they accepted Chopra-Sharma-Triguna's article
: for publication. There was no letter by Chopra published in the Oct. 2,
: 1991 issue of JAMA. The journal published only one letter by Chopra and
??? How can you say that "There was no letter by Chopra published in the
Oct. 2, 1991 issue of JAMA" when the ***OFFICIAL*** reply of Drs. Sharma
& Chopra to various Letters to the Editor in JAMA
appeared in the same issue that your attack on Chopra and Sharma did?
That is, did you somehow miss the fact that YOUR article about Chopra's
article on page 1741 of JAMA was followed by Letters to the Editor
concerning Chopra's article and was followed by Sharma and Chopra's
official response to the Letters to the Editor [you didn't allow them to
respond to YOUR article until some months later] on page 1774 of that
same issue of JAMA, which, coincidentally was that October 2, 1991 issue
that you claim had no letter from Chopra?
Or does Chopra's official response to Letters to the Editor of JAMA in
the October 2, 1991 issue of JAMA not qualify under your strict
definition of what a "letter" by Chopra "published in the Oct. 2, 1991
issue of JAMA" is?
Your attempt at distorting reality by playing word-games does not work
well on the Internet, especially not in sci.* newsgroups [or in
comp.sys.* newsgroups as Andy Groves of Intel is discovering]
: that was in the March 11, 1992 issue. (It is curious to note that, though
: Chopra and other TM plaintiffs sued me unsuccessfully for $194 million for
: alleged libel, his letter does not bother to identify a single defamatory
: statement. I'm still waiting for him or the other plaintiffs to identify
: even one defamatory falsehood in that article.)
Are the above misleading statements by you "defamatory?" Probably not in
any strict sense. However, they DO support my contention that you and
JAMA used your article as a political platform, rather than as a way of
warning JAMA readers that Chopra had deceived you.
: Mr. Cook mischaracterizes
: what my article was about. This and the inaccurate and misleading
: statements about the article suggest that he never read it. I suggest
: anyone interested in this affair should get a copy of it and judge for
: themselves. A copy can be easily obtained from most large libraries,
: medical libraries, TM-Ex, and probably a lot of other sources. It is
: well worth reading. Don't rely on anyone who may have an axe to grind to
: interpret it for you.
"Ax to grind" includes you [and me, I suppose] and any other person that
feels strongly enough about the article to discuss it at this late date.
However, unlike some, I don't try to paint a one-sided picture about what
happened.
And, by the way, I *HAVE* read your article. I am also an eyewitness to
one incident that you mis-construe in a negative way in your article, and
I posses the original Harvard Magazine article that you so cleverly
distort in your JAMA representation of it.
All along, I have said that Chopra & co.'s representation of themselves
as having no financial connections to any organization that makes money
off of the sale of MAV products to be disingenuous. By the same token,
your representation of them as HAVING financial connections (excuse me,
your heavy-handed inuendos that they had such connections at the time of
the article's acceptance for publication) are equally disengenuous.
Chopra & co had extremely strong emotional commitements to Maharishi
AYurveda that made any statements that they made suspect, far more so
than any mere monetary considerations would have given them, but
emotional attachment and bias aren't as "sexy" as financial ones, so you
went with the National Enquirer-style journalism.
And defended any and all questions about your journalistic integrety with
hair-splitting worthy of a Jesuit arguing from an arbitrary perspective
while in Semenary.
Your turn.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English
In case you missed it, a person purporting to be Andrew Skolnick, sometime
associate editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and
author of what I consider to be a "hit piece" on Dr. Deepak Chopra and
Maharishi Ayurveda, has been posting articles to
alt.meditation.transcendental.
Some of you may recall my one-sided tirade against Mr. Skolnick and JAMA
from a few months ago. Assuming that this IS the real Mr. Skolnick, we
now have an opportunity to see how he responds to my statements.
This is something that he did NOT provide to Drs. Chopra and Sharma when he
first published his article in the October 2, 199 JAMA. They were forced to
respond in the Letters to the Editor column some months later, rather
than being given the equal platform opportunity that is usually given to
scientists to resond to criticism in a journal.
If the author of these various articles is NOT Mr. Skolnick, then perhaps
someone reading sci.skeptic or sci.med who knows the real Mr. Skolnick
can let him know that someone is posting ill-thought-out drivel on
alt.meditation.transcendental using his name...
Personally, I think that it IS Mr. Skolnick. I recognize his style...
: --
Lawson English
: ISRAEL SILVERMAN (israel.s...@moondog.uucp.netcom.com) wrote:
: : LE> Association, and author of what I consider to be a "hit piece" on
: : LE> Dr. Deepak Chopra and Maharishi Ayurveda, has been posting articles
: : LE> to alt.meditation.transcendental.
: : I haven't seen the article.
: : Do you have it there, and can you quote a choice selection from it,
: : perhaps your favorite? I'm always in awe of a writing style that just
: : avoids being considered defamation.
Perhaps the two most obvious example of how Skolnick manages to avoid
being sucessfully sued while at the same time giving the wrong impression
about things, are:
1) his quote of Deepak Chopra's autobiography in Skolnick's JAMA article -
'"In his book _Return of the RIshi (Boston, MASS Houghton Mifflin Co;
1988: 139), CHopra repeats an old Indian saying, '"Four things in life you
must cherish: first the guru, then your parents, next your wife and
children, and finally your nation." Former members of the TM movement say
that their belief in the Maharishi was so great that they would have done
anything the guru asked.' (Maharishi Ayurv-Veda: Guru's Marketing Scheme
Promises the World Eternal 'Perfect Health', A. Skolnick, JAMA October 2,
1991 -Vol 266, No. 13).
Well, I can't comment on anyone's dedication or belief in their guru,
but here is a "rather" more fully in-context version of the same quote:
[description of agonizing over whether to go listen to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
lecture in person is deleted]
"Whatever else we are, doctors are not good followers. I made excuses for
a day or two. My psychologist friend continued to call me, and I could tell
that he wondered at my reluctance. But I had placed a long distance between
myself and any idea of having a guru. I would not have started TM in the
first place if it hadn't allowed me to meditate on my own. In that respect,
even though I was raised in India, I am a child of my times. There is an
old saying in India: 'Four things in life you must cherish: first the guru,
then your parents, next your wife and children and finally the nation.' No
one knows how old the saying is, old enough to seem permanent. But the
changeless has changed. I talked to Rita about the troublesome invitation,
and we decided that our curiousity was stronger than our timidity. We went."
(_Return of the Rishi_ pp 138-9).
Taken in context, this quote from Dr. Chopra's book has exactly the
opposite meaning from how Skolnick would have you interpret it.
Skolnick won all sorts of awards (according to his own article) for the
marvelous accuracy and so on of his reporting found in his JAMA article...
:-/
Lawson English
: [cross-posted from alt.meditation.transcendental]
: AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
[interesting but irrelevant references to the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson, and [God rest 'is soul] Good King George,
deleted]
: : *But much more important*: there seems to be a strategy here to shift the
: : debate away from the facts and charges in the article to a debate on the
: : character of the author. This is transparent sophistry. Shame on those
: : who would argue about the character of the author they do not know and
: : have not bothered to read his article.
Hmmm. Until now, I'd like to think that I haven't mentioned your
character (or lack of it). However, your charge of "transparent
sophistry" seems to be a case of, well, transparent sophistry. Your
clever use of facts in your JAMA article, your willingness to split hairs
in trying to make a distinction between "sole owner of" and "sole
stockholder of," your making the claim that Chopra never published a
*letter* in the October 2, 1991 issue of JAMA, when in fact, he published
his *formal rebuttal* to other letters to the editor in that issue, etc,
all make me want to talk about how YOU indulge in "transparent
sophistry."
Shame on those who awarded you all of your awards for
excellence in journalism for your JAMA article who never bothered to check
your sources -and apparently never bothered to read the entire sequence of
articles, letters, corrections, etc, that were published in JAMA related to the
subject of Maharishi Ayurveda and the original article's authors.
: --
James J. Lippard
English) wrote:
This case seems about as clear-cut a case of out-of-context quotation as
you could care to have--it would be quite at home in a publication of the
Institute for Creation Research.
I'd like to hear Mr. Skolnick's explanation. Was this an accident?
--
Jim Lippard lip...@skeptic.com lip...@ediacara.org
Internet Representative http://www.primenet.com/~lippard
_Skeptic_ magazine http://www.skeptic.com/skeptics-society.html
in...@skeptic.com
Russell Turpin
In article <3dnj83$s...@news.primenet.com>,
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the two most obvious example of how Skolnick manages to avoid
> being sucessfully sued while at the same time giving the wrong
> impression about things, are:
>
> 1) his quote of Deepak Chopra's autobiography in Skolnick's JAMA article -
> '"In his book _Return of the RIshi (Boston, MASS Houghton Mifflin Co;
> 1988: 139), CHopra repeats an old Indian saying, '"Four things in life you
>
> Well, I can't comment on anyone's dedication or belief in their guru,
> but here is a "rather" more fully in-context version of the same quote:
>
> [description of agonizing over whether to go listen to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> lecture in person is deleted]
>
> opposite meaning from how Skolnick would have you interpret it.
>
> Skolnick won all sorts of awards (according to his own article) for the
> marvelous accuracy and so on of his reporting found in his JAMA article...
Not quite ... maybe not at all.
The character of true belief is largely seen in how it is
propagated and evangelized. One of the signs of true belief is
the Narrative of Conversion from Skepticism. Glimmers of this
appear in the Lucan gospel, whose author claims to have
investigated the things about which he wrote. It is visible in
full blossom in pop evangelists such as Josh McDowell, who gets a
lot of mileage from the claim that he started as a skeptical
atheist. (My examples come from the Christian tradition because
that is the kind of true belief with which I am most familiar.)
The Narrative of Conversion from Skepticism typically has the
following elements:
o the author claims to start out as rational, critical, and
skeptical,
o the author tells how he gained belief,
o the author emphasizes that this conversion appealed to his
rational faculty or overcame his skepticism,
o the author emphasizes how he struggles against the nascent
belief, and
o the author often relates an experience whose interpretation
by the author served as a turning point.
What the narrative typically lacks (despite its claim) is any
sign of rational and critical thought about the belief that is
eventually achieved, giving these narratives a high degree of
unintentional irony.
I have not read the book that Lawson English quotes. But the
larger passage he quotes in accusing Skolnick of quoting out
of context sounds very much like the beginning of a Narrative
of Conversion from Skepticism. If so, this reinforces the
intent of Skolnick's comment. Whether Skolnick's comment is
appropriate or not depends on the rest of the work.
Russell
--
"Everywhere I go, I'm asked if the universities stifle writers.
My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."
-- Flannery O'Connor
James J. Lippard
(Russell Turpin) wrote:
I suspect this may well be exactly what is going on in Chopra's book, but I
don't see how it makes Skolnick's quotation back into an in-context quotation.
Skolnick quotes Chopra as though he is promoting the view quoted; context
shows that he is not. Even if what Chopra is doing is describing a Conversion
from Skepticism, I bet that he still portrays himself as believing on the
basis of evidence, not on devotion to a guru--and thus does NOT advocate
the view expressed by the quotation in Skolnick.
>
> Russell
>
>
>
> --
> "Everywhere I go, I'm asked if the universities stifle writers.
> My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."
> -- Flannery O'Connor
--
Lawson English
: -*----
: In article <3dnj83$s...@news.primenet.com>,
: Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
: > Perhaps the two most obvious example of how Skolnick manages to avoid
: > being sucessfully sued while at the same time giving the wrong
: > impression about things, are:
: >
: > 1) his quote of Deepak Chopra's autobiography in Skolnick's JAMA article -
: > '"In his book _Return of the RIshi (Boston, MASS Houghton Mifflin Co;
: > 1988: 139), CHopra repeats an old Indian saying, '"Four things in life you
: > must cherish: first the guru, ..."'
: >
: > Well, I can't comment on anyone's dedication or belief in their guru,
: > but here is a "rather" more fully in-context version of the same quote:
: >
: > [description of agonizing over whether to go listen to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
: > lecture in person is deleted]
: >
: > Taken in context, this quote from Dr. Chopra's book has exactly the
: > opposite meaning from how Skolnick would have you interpret it.
: >
: > Skolnick won all sorts of awards (according to his own article) for the
: > marvelous accuracy and so on of his reporting found in his JAMA article...
: Not quite ... maybe not at all.
[descriptions of conversion from skepticism deleted]
: What the narrative typically lacks (despite its claim) is any
: sign of rational and critical thought about the belief that is
: eventually achieved, giving these narratives a high degree of
: unintentional irony.
: I have not read the book that Lawson English quotes. But the
: larger passage he quotes in accusing Skolnick of quoting out
: of context sounds very much like the beginning of a Narrative
: of Conversion from Skepticism. If so, this reinforces the
: intent of Skolnick's comment. Whether Skolnick's comment is
: appropriate or not depends on the rest of the work.
: Russell
To some extent, you are correct. Certainly Chopra's autobiography is a
description of how he went from being a skeptical medical doctor to a
dedicated ayurvedic physician. I'm not sure how much evidence of rational
and critical thought is contained in _Return of the Rishi_ (being a True
Believer myself, it's hard to see the world through skeptical eyes and
what would appear rational to me, might seem "magical" to someone else).
OTH, the original JAMA article that Chopra wrote was reasonably (at least
to me) conservative in its claims. It DID say that ayurvedic doctors CAN
(rather than "CLAIM to be able to") diagnose illnesses by taking the pulse.
It also cited preliminary rat studies (admitting that further research
is needed) on the effectivenes of herbal preparations such as Maharishi Amrit
Kalash (these citations were the _casus belli_ for Skolnick's article).
Obviously, Chopra's article was written by a True Believer. However, I
don't think that anyone reading it believed that it was written by a
neutral observer such as a medical anthropologist. The cruxes of Chopra's
article were: Ayurveda is being revived by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; It is
good; It is valid; It does these things; Here is the theory (in ayurvedic
terms) of how it does what it does; Here is some preliminary research on
some aspects of ayurveda; Isn't this exciting?
Skolnick's "expose" made it sound as though Chopra was selling ayurvedic
products in the JAMA article. Aside from the borderline case of citing
rat-studies on MAK, I dont believe this to be the case. Certainly, it
didn't warrant the response that Skolnick gave.
IMHO.
BTW, how many who read Skolnick's article in JAMA or the _Skeptical
Inquirer_ actually read the original article that Skolnick attacked? I am
often astonished by the number who read the rebuttal without ever reading
the original.
: --
: "Everywhere I go, I'm asked if the universities stifle writers.
: My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."
: -- Flannery O'Connor
Hmmm...
Lawson English
: : ISRAEL SILVERMAN (israel.s...@moondog.uucp.netcom.com) wrote:
: : : LE> Association, and author of what I consider to be a "hit piece" on
: : : LE> Dr. Deepak Chopra and Maharishi Ayurveda, has been posting articles
: : : LE> to alt.meditation.transcendental.
: : : I haven't seen the article.
: : : Do you have it there, and can you quote a choice selection from it,
: : : perhaps your favorite? I'm always in awe of a writing style that just
: : : avoids being considered defamation.
: Perhaps the two most obvious example of how Skolnick manages to avoid
: being sucessfully sued while at the same time giving the wrong impression
: about things, are:
2) This is actually a really trivial thing
to talk about. It has NOTHING to do with anything claimed about
Chopra and company. The only thing that makes it important is that
rather than admitting that he was wrong in mentioning this item in
the first place, Skolnick insists on brazening it out in his rebutal to
the charge that he was making mountains out of non-existant mole-
hills. This is suggestive (to moi at least) of his entire agenda: create
as much trouble for Chopra and company as possible and make
Maharishi Ayurveda unacceptable to the American medical
community:
"In its September/October 1989 issue, _Harvard Magazine_ published a
cover story on Chopra by associate editor Craig Labert
that touted the Maharishi's wares. Reprints of this article were
widely circulated by the TM movement. The magazine's readers were
not informed that the author practices yogic flying. Lambert wrote
JAMA a letter protesting my investigation and accusing me of 'sleazy'
and 'deceptive' behavior. This letter was one of many sent to protest my
inquiries." (Skolnick 1992, p 258, reprinted in Skeptical Inquirer 1992).
In the "final chapter [about the Maharishi affair]" Letters to the
Editor section, Craig Lambert insists that his article was about the
brothers Chopra and that it was an entirely balanced article.
Skolnick replies:
"Regardless of when he started trying to levitate, my point stands:
_Harvard Magazine_ did not inform its readers that the author of an
article extolling TM programs was involved in the TM movement.
"Lambert's article was in no way ballanced. Nothing was included
from experts familiar with TM's history of deceptive practice -such
as William Jarvis, PhD, of the National Council Against Health Fraud,
and John Renner, MD, of the Consumer Health Information Research
Institute, who say that Maharishi Ayur-Veda is just the latest of
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's deceptive marketing schemes." (Skolnick,
JAMA March 11, p 1340).
Weeeelll, unlike (I presume) the editors of ScienceWriter or the
editors of the Skeptical Inquirer, I happen to have a copy of the
Harvard Magazine issue in question...
++++++++++++++++++++++
This is an attempt to summarize the article that Craig Lambert wrote
for _Harvard Magazine_. It was the cover article of the September-
October 1989 issue. It is called "The Chopra Presecriptions: Two
brothers explore the relationship of health, disease and
consciousness." pp 22-28:
The article opens with a description of the hi-tech world of Sanjiv
Chopra, MD, and how he is dealing with a patient who had gastric
cancer.
The scene switches to 40 miles away, and how Sanjiv's brother,
Deepak Chopra, MD, is dealing with a woman who had cancer.
The article continues with a short discussion of the Ayurvedic center
where Deepak is director and how he treated his patient 'Eleanor':
"The Ayurvedic regimin included meditation [1], revised diet and
sleep paterns, massages, herb preparations, and aromas..."
It continues with a discussion of Eleanor's current status, which is
[at that time at least] complete remmission.
The article now reveals that the two brothers live close to each
other, and went to the same medical school in India, and interned at
the same hospital in New Jersey, with Deepak Chopra "blazing the
trail, as usual, two years before Sanjiv."
It mentions their father, a prominent MD in India.
It goes on to contrast the two brothers' personalities and approaches
to life-in-general.
It mentions how Western their training was and makes mention of
the ancient art of Ayurveda that still survives in India.
Both brothers "gravitated towards Boston" and the medical
community that is in that area.
It goes on to list the impressive medical and academic credentials of
Sanjiv Chopra (40 scholarly articles published on the liver and
digestive system, co-editor of a recent book _Pathophysiology of
Gastrointestinal Disorders_ and sole author of _Disorders of
the Liver_)
More descriptions of Sanjiv Chopra's hi-tech method of dealing with a
patient and the lo-tech treatment that the patient's disease actually
warrants (weekly phlebotomy to bleed excess iron)
Discussion of Andrew Wiel's book and so on.
A description of Deepak Chopra's mind-set as he built his medical
practice in the 1970's and 1980's:
"But a serendipitous event redirected his career: one Sunday
afternoon in 1980, he stumbled on a book titled _Transcendental
Meditation_ while browsing in a used bookstore. Two days later, he
and his wife Rita both received instruction in Transcendental
Meditation (TM), a simple and highly pragmatic technique of
meditation introduced some thirty years ago
by Indian spiritual teacher Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
"The twice-daily twenty-minute periods of meditation affected
Chopra profoundly, changing his state of mind in ways that quickly
showed up in his lifestyle. His consumption of cigarettes, coffee, and
alcohol dropped away. He felt calmer, more relaxed and more
energetic. 'I became ten times more efficient in my work,' he says.
With his wife, he learned the TM-SIdhi program, an advanced
meditative practice that aims to profoundly integrate body and mind.
Thier teenage daughter Mallika and son Gautama became dedicated
medittors as well." [2]
The article continues with a description of a meeting with Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi and the decision to become involved in Ayurveda.
A description of Chopra's ideas on the Quantum Mechanical mind
follow, relating it to both Western and Ayurvedic medicine.
A description of an attempt to diagnose an illness in a patient of
Sanjiv Chopra follows.
Mention of the "deadly bullets" that Western medicine uses to
destroy disease -citing Andrew Weil's views on the subject...
A brief mention of the non-toxicity of amrit kalash...
A declaration by a Harvard professor of medical anthropology that
Ayurveda is just a fad and won't be a part of a revolution in medical
care.
Deepak CHopra's reponse.
The fact that Sanjiv Chopra and family also practice TM is
revealed.[3]
A description of Sanjiv Chopra's encounter with B.D. Triguna in India
and what Triguna said about Sanjiv after performing pulse diagnosis.
(summary of "The Chopra Prescriptions" by Craig Lambert, Harvard
Magazine, Set-Oct 1989, pp 22-28)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is the whole of the article. According to Skolnick, this was "in no
way balanced." It didn't repeat any of the criticisms that some have
towards TM.
I'd like to point out that it was not a balanced article about my affair
with a male unicorn, either...
The fact that Skolnick felt compelled to insist that the Harvard
Magazine article was somehow sinister, deceptive, etc, should be
used as a yardstick to gauge every statement that the man makes on
this entire subject, IMHO...
The "[1]" "[2]", etc, were the only places in the article where TM was
mentioned, either by name, or simply by saying "meditation."
One wonders how (and where) Lambert would have put in the criticism of TM
that Skolnick appears to feel was lacking.
"Regardless of when he started trying to levitate, my point stands:
_Harvard Magazine_ did not inform its readers that the author of an
article extolling TM programs was involved in the TM movement.
"Lambert's article was in no way balanced..." (Andrew Skolwnick in
response to Letters to the Editor, JAMA, March 11, 1992 -Vol 267, No. 10)
Go figger.
Russell Turpin
In article <3dnpa6$s...@news.primenet.com>,
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Obviously, Chopra's article was written by a True Believer.
> However, I don't think that anyone reading it believed that
> it was written by a neutral observer such as a medical
> anthropologist. The cruxes of Chopra's article were: Ayurveda
> is being revived by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; It is good; It is
> valid; It does these things; Here is the theory (in ayurvedic
> terms) of how it does what it does; Here is some preliminary
> research on some aspects of ayurveda; Isn't this exciting?
Taking for granted Lawson English's summary, the first part is
just a proselyte giving his opinion. And there is nothing wrong
with that. If JAMA wants to have an article on how people
view various traditional medical practices, it seems quite
appropriately included.
But the part that is summarized: "here is some preliminary
research on some aspects of ayurveda ..." is troublesome. As it
has been described in this newsgroup, ayurveda is not a
scientific theory and simply cannot be tested as if it were.
Before there is any value to "preliminary research" on ayurveda,
one *must* construct a positive theory that is separated from the
religious aspects of ayurveda. Until this is done, the
theorizing is bogus. A journal such as JAMA should *not*
sanction bogus science under the rubric of someone describing
their practice of a traditional medicine. If this was included
in Chopra's article, the referees should have asked it to be
excised. (I wonder if the JAMA editor let himself get into the
position of treating Chopra's article as part fish and part
fowl.)
> BTW, how many who read Skolnick's article in JAMA or the
> _Skeptical Inquirer_ actually read the original article that
> Skolnick attacked? ...
I suffer under the disadvantage of having read neither. My
comments concern only what has been posted here.
Russell
JoeH510226
I read your summary of Craig Lambert's article on the Chopra brothers. I'm
a journalist and an editor, and that kind of profile has a name in the
trade. It's called "a blowjob."
You say: [[[One wonders how (and where) Lambert would have put in the
criticism of TM that Skolnick appears to feel was lacking.]]]
And any editor will tell you: "Right after the first mention of TM. High
up in the piece."
What are you kidding?
I would have sent this kid Lambert packing if he handed me puff-piece crap
like that. And, if I found out he was secretly connected to this gang he's
fellating in such a "balanced" way in public, I'd fire him.
You seem to think that the fact he only mentioned TM three times means he
wasn't biased? If he didn't mention TM at all, it would have still been
biased, because he was positively promoting quack medicine to which he was
connected.
[[[[This is an attempt to summarize the article that Craig Lambert wrote
for _Harvard Magazine_. It was the cover article of the September-
October 1989 issue. It is called "The Chopra Presecriptions: Two
brothers explore the relationship of health, disease and
consciousness." pp 22-28:
The article opens with a description of the hi-tech world of Sanjiv
Chopra, MD, and how he is dealing with a patient who had gastric
cancer.
The scene switches to 40 miles away, and how Sanjiv's brother,
Deepak Chopra, MD, is dealing with a woman who had cancer.
The article continues with a short discussion of the Ayurvedic center
where Deepak is director and how he treated his patient 'Eleanor':]]]
>>>Here is the first spot Ayurveda's connection to TM must be broached,
and glossed with a short professional medical critique.
[[["The Ayurvedic regimin included meditation [1], revised diet and
sleep paterns, massages, herb preparations, and aromas..."]]]
>>>Oh, yeah, Lawson. That sounds like it'd work on cancer. Do you practice
this stuff, too, Lawson?
[[[It continues with a discussion of Eleanor's current status, which is
(at that time at least) complete remmission.
The article now reveals that the two brothers live close to each
other, and went to the same medical school in India, and interned at
the same hospital in New Jersey, with Deepak Chopra "blazing the
trail, as usual, two years before Sanjiv."
It mentions their father, a prominent MD in India.
It goes on to contrast the two brothers' personalities and approaches
to life-in-general.
It mentions how Western their training was and makes mention of
the ancient art of Ayurveda that still survives in India.]]]
>>>Here is the second place that longer quotes from an expert critical of
Ayurveda must go, editorially speaking.
[[[Both brothers "gravitated towards Boston" and the medical
medittors as well." [2]]]]
>>>Here's where the MMY's long history of dubious schemes must go. You
can't pass over a reference to the MMY as if he doesn't have a
significantly questionable past. That would be like writing an article
about the daily exercise routines of Richard Speck, without mentioning he
killed eight nurses. Or a puff piece on Frank Sinatra, without mentioning
his connections to the Mafia.
[[[The article continues with a description of a meeting with Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi and the decision to become involved in Ayurveda.
A description of Chopra's ideas on the Quantum Mechanical mind
follow, relating it to both Western and Ayurvedic medicine.]]]
>>>Here is where the quote a real Harvard physicist who is an expert in
Quantum Mechanics goes.
[[[A description of an attempt to diagnose an illness in a patient of
Sanjiv Chopra follows.
Mention of the "deadly bullets" that Western medicine uses to
destroy disease -citing Andrew Weil's views on the subject...
A brief mention of the non-toxicity of amrit kalash...]]]
>>>Here is where Chopra's financial ties to Amrit Kalash go.
[[[A declaration by a Harvard professor of medical anthropology that
Ayurveda is just a fad and won't be a part of a revolution in medical
care.]]]
>>>This is insufficient. Too little, too late, and off the subject. Not,
whether it will catch on, but if it's medicine or religion.
[[[Deepak CHopra's reponse.
The fact that Sanjiv Chopra and family also practice TM is
revealed.[3]]]]
>>>"Hey, kid. You gotta mention this way higher up in the piece."
[[[A description of Sanjiv Chopra's encounter with B.D. Triguna in India
and what Triguna said about Sanjiv after performing pulse diagnosis.
(summary of "The Chopra Prescriptions" by Craig Lambert, Harvard
Magazine, Set-Oct 1989, pp 22-28)
That is the whole of the article. According to Skolnick, this was "in no
way balanced." It didn't repeat any of the criticisms that some have
towards TM.
I'd like to point out that it was not a balanced article about my affair
with a male unicorn, either...]]]
>>>Like I said, Lawson, Skolnick's appraisal that it was in no way
balanced seems an understatement. Journalistically speaking, it's the
stuff you wipe off your shoe.
[[[The fact that Skolnick felt compelled to insist that the Harvard
Magazine article was somehow sinister, deceptive, etc, should be
used as a yardstick to gauge every statement that the man makes on
this entire subject, IMHO...]]]
>>>And your defense of that "blowjob" should be used as a yardstick to
gauge all of your statements.
[[[The "[1]" "[2]", etc, were the only places in the article where TM was
mentioned, either by name, or simply by saying "meditation."
One wonders how (and where) Lambert would have put in the criticism of TM
that Skolnick appears to feel was lacking.]]]
Still wonder?
Cheers,
Joe
Lawson English
: -*----
: In article <3dnpa6$s...@news.primenet.com>,
: Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
: > Obviously, Chopra's article was written by a True Believer.
: > However, I don't think that anyone reading it believed that
: > it was written by a neutral observer such as a medical
: > anthropologist. The cruxes of Chopra's article were: Ayurveda
: > is being revived by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; It is good; It is
: > valid; It does these things; Here is the theory (in ayurvedic
: > terms) of how it does what it does; Here is some preliminary
: > research on some aspects of ayurveda; Isn't this exciting?
: Taking for granted Lawson English's summary, the first part is
: just a proselyte giving his opinion. And there is nothing wrong
: with that. If JAMA wants to have an article on how people
: view various traditional medical practices, it seems quite
: appropriately included.
"[Editor of JAMA, George D.] Lundberg says that 'JAMA has long had an
interest in publishing responsible articles on traditional health care
practices from other parts of the world. We published ''Letter From New
Delhi'' in THE JOURNAL's internation health theme issue believing that
the authors were acting in good faith and that they were disinterested
scientists who had expertise in the long-practiced system of folk
rememdies of India known as Ayurvedic medicine. At this time, we did not
know that ''Maharishi Ayurveda,'' ''Transcendental Meditation,'' and the
''TM-SIdhi'' programs are brands of health care products and services
being marketed by the TM movement.'" (Skolnick, JAMA Oct 2, 1991, p 1742)
: But the part that is summarized: "here is some preliminary
: research on some aspects of ayurveda ..." is troublesome. As it
: has been described in this newsgroup, ayurveda is not a
: scientific theory and simply cannot be tested as if it were.
"According to the ancient and overwhelmingly, nay, even ludicrously, wise
and holy sage xyz, herbal preparation ijk has the following effects on
illnesses..."
Religious overtones not withstanding, this sounds like a perfectly
viable, testable and falsifiable statement to me.
: Before there is any value to "preliminary research" on ayurveda,
: one *must* construct a positive theory that is separated from the
: religious aspects of ayurveda. Until this is done, the
: theorizing is bogus. A journal such as JAMA should *not*
: sanction bogus science under the rubric of someone describing
: their practice of a traditional medicine. If this was included
: in Chopra's article, the referees should have asked it to be
: excised. (I wonder if the JAMA editor let himself get into the
: position of treating Chopra's article as part fish and part
: fowl.)
I trust that after reading the following, you will agree that if the
articles cited below were performed competently, your objection
doesn't apply?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"A select group of Ayurvedic herbal compounds called _rasayanas_
are described as having the effect of increasing resistance to disease
and promoting longevity. Although further investigation is clearly
needed, recent studies indicate their potential applications. At the Ohio
State University(Columbus), Indiana Unversity (Indianapolis),
University of Kansas (Kansas City), South Dakota College of Pharmacy
(Brookings), the University of Colorado (Denver), and other institutions,
two rasayana compounds, known as Maharishi Amrit Kalash-4 and -5
(M-4 and M-5), have been investigated. Both M-4 and M-5 have been
found to reduce the incidence of chemically induced mammary
carcinoma in up to 88% of experimental animals and caused up to 60%
of fully formed tumors in control animals to regrees when the animals
were subsequently given the compounds [1,2]. The M-4 comound also
has been found to prevent experimental lung cancer metastases in up
to 65% of animals tested. [3] This antitumor activity was
unaccompanied by toxic effects. [1] Maharishi Amrit Kalash-5 has been
found to induce morphological differentiation in 75% of neuroblastoma
cells in culture. Furthermore, continued presence of M-5 in the culture
prevented rapid degeneration of the differentiated cells [4] In addition,
M-5 has been shown to enhance lymphoproliferative response in
antigen-stimulated animals as compared with control animals[5], and to
reduce platelet aggregation induced by adenosene diphosphate,
arachidonic acid, collagen, and epinephrine. [6] The chemical analysis
of both M-4 and M-5 indicates that they contain a mixture of
antioxidants. [1] Both compounds have been found to decrease free
radicals and reactive oxygen species, including superoxide, hydrogen
peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals generated both in cellular (neutrophil)
and noncellular (xanthine-xanthine oxidase) systems. [7] This may
indicate potential applications in the growing number of diseases and
toxicities linked to free radical-induced damage. [7]" (Chopra et al,
JAMA 1991, p 2634)
[1] Sharma, HM, Dwivedi C, Satter BC, et al, "Antineoplastic properties
of Maharishi-4 against DMBA-induced mammary tumors in rats."
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990;35:767-773.
[2] Sharma HM, Krieger J, Dwivedi C. "Antineoplastic properties of
dietary Maharishi-4 and Maharishi Amrit Kalash ayurvedic food
suppliments." Eur J Pharmacol. 1990;183:193.
[3] Patel V, Wong J, Shen RW, Brahmi J, Sharma H. "Reduction of
mouse Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) by M-4 rasyana." FASEB J.
1990;4:A637 Abstract.
[4] Prasad KN, Edwards-Prasad J, Kentroti S, Brodie C, Vernadakis A.
"Extract of Maharishi Amrit Kalash-5, an Ayurvedic herbal preparation,
induces differentiation in neuroblastoma cells in culture. Presented at
Eighth Biennial Meeting, International Society of Developmental
Neuroscience; June 16, 1990; Bar Harbour, Fla.
[5] Dileepan KN, Patel V, Sharma HM, Stechshulte DJ. "Priming of
splenic lymphocytes after ingestion of an Ayurvedic herbal food
supplement: evidence of an immunomodulatory effect." Biochem Arch.
1990;6:267-274.
[6] Sharma HM, Feng y, Panganamala RV. "Maharihi Amrit Kalash
(MAK) prevents human platelet aggregation." Clin Ter Cardiovasc.
1989;8:227-230.
[7] Niwa y. "Effect of Maharishi-4 and Maharishi-5 on inflammatory
mediators with special reference to their free radical scavenging
effect." Indian J Clin Pract. 1991;1:23-27.
Sharma HM, Triguna BD, Chopra D. "Letter From New Delhi -
Maharishi Ayur-Veda: Modern Insights Into Ancient Medicine." JAMA
1991;265:20:2633-2637.
Terry Smith
> From: eng...@primenet.com (Lawson English)
> Date: 26 Dec 1994 23:37:16 GMT
> Hmmm. Until now, I'd like to think that I haven't mentioned
> your character (or lack of it). However, your charge of
> "transparent sophistry" seems to be a case of, well,
> transparent sophistry. Your clever use of facts in your
^^^^^
> JAMA article, your willingness to split hairs in trying to
> make a distinction between "sole owner of" and "sole
Such an admission leaving you no option, but to transfer the debate to the
author's personality? Bad Karma man!
Terry
--
Usenet: ter...@gastro.apana.org.au
Fidonet: 3:800/846.23
Lawson English
: Terry Smith (ter...@gastro.apana.org.au) wrote:
: : > From: eng...@primenet.com (Lawson English)
: : > Date: 26 Dec 1994 23:37:16 GMT
: : > Hmmm. Until now, I'd like to think that I haven't mentioned
: : > your character (or lack of it). However, your charge of
: : > "transparent sophistry" seems to be a case of, well,
: : > transparent sophistry. Your clever use of facts in your
: : ^^^^^
: : > JAMA article, your willingness to split hairs in trying to
: : > make a distinction between "sole owner of" and "sole
: : Such an admission leaving you no option, but to transfer the debate to the
: : author's personality? Bad Karma man!
I think that you missed my point: just because a story is 100% factual,
doesn't mean that it can't be incredibly deceptive. I've already
mentioned Skolnick's creative use of quotations in the summarizing (last)
section of the article which juxtaposes a quote from Chopra's
autobiography, which, taken in context, is entirely different in meaning
with how it is used in Skolnick's article.
Other places where Skolnick gives interesting implications include citing
the unfortunate case of an MIT post grad who (according to Skolnick)
abused his time at MIT to do unsanctioned research. Perhaps this is all
true. On the other hand, careful checking of the research cited in the
JAMA article that Skolnick blasts reveals that no resarch by this person
is cited.
The implication being, of course, that since this one study [that wasn't
cited] is bogus, ALL studies on Maharishi Ayureveda must be bogus also
-including all of those cited in the original JAMA article.
The article never out and out accuses any of the researchers cited as
being frauds or deceptive, but manages to convey the message pretty darn
well, IMHO.
Facts is facts, no?
: --
Russell Turpin
I wrote:
>> But the part that is summarized: "here is some preliminary
>> research on some aspects of ayurveda ..." is troublesome. As
>> it has been described in this newsgroup, ayurveda is not a
>> scientific theory and simply cannot be tested as if it were.
In article <3doeu0$d...@news.primenet.com>,
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> "According to the ancient and overwhelmingly, nay, even
> ludicrously, wise and holy sage xyz, herbal preparation
> ijk has the following effects on illnesses..."
>
> Religious overtones not withstanding, this sounds like a
> perfectly viable, testable and falsifiable statement to me.
There are two issues I would raise.
(1) From what has been written here, I have the impression
that ayurveda is more than just a collection of remedies,
that it also includes some substantive theory. (a) The efficacy
of remedies from a medical tradition does *not* validate the
tradition's theory. Drugs from aspirin to ephedrine to curare
were known in various forms to a variety of cultures. But this
does NOT validate the theory of humours (Hellenic medical
tradition), qi (traditional Chinese medicine), or the medical
notions of various South American tribes. To restore traditional
Hellenic medicine, its advocates must demonstrate the existence
of the four humours. To restore traditional Chinese medicine,
its advocates must develop a testable theory of qi and execute
the experiments that show its existence. And similarly, to
restore ayurvedic medicine, its advocates must address *its*
theory, not merely the efficacy of its remedies.
(1b) If, on the other hand, those who would restore ayurvedic
medicine do not care about its theory and are concerned only
with dredging effective remedies from its tradition, then there
is very little to argue about. This is something that modern
medicine has done with a variety of medical traditions. If the
ayurvedic tradition is like most other prescientific medical
traditions, it should have many useful concoctions, the research
of which will add some to our knowledge, and some of which may
provide more effective remedies for some problems that now exist.
(It would be truly surprising if a long medical tradition was
truly empty of useful concoctions!)
(2) Whether the proposed claim is useful and testable depends
on whether the "herbal preparation" is adequately described,
on how the set of illnesses are described, and on how the alleged
effects are described. Usually in dredging older medical
traditions for useful remedies, modern researchers have to do
some work to turn older, traditional descriptions into more
useful ones. For example, modern medical science makes much
finer distinctions in diagnosis than do premodern traditions.
Pete Slover
debates about TM. Unless the posting touches at least somewhat on journalism, please delete
alt.journalism from the cross-posting field. Thanks.
--
................................................................
Pete Slover
Staff Writer, The Dallas Morning News
email: psl...@pic.net TALK, FING psl...@pslover.pic.net
PING, (HTTP,FTP by request): pslover.pic.net (198.80.88.150)
Voice (214) 977-8731 Fax (214) 977-8319
Vinayak Dutt
#There are two issues I would raise.
#
#(1) From what has been written here, I have the impression
# that ayurveda is more than just a collection of remedies,
#that it also includes some substantive theory. (a) The efficacy
#of remedies from a medical tradition does *not* validate the
#tradition's theory.
I would agree with Russell completely. Its the theory of Ayurveda
which is quite shaky. But I would support Ayurveda on the second point
of Russell ... All the remedies are based on correlation .... someone
had some problem; that person took so and so concoction and was cured ...
and lot of such cases make it into a standard treatment ....
#(1b) If, on the other hand, those who would restore ayurvedic
# medicine do not care about its theory and are concerned only
#with dredging effective remedies from its tradition, then there
#is very little to argue about.
Yes, just look at the medicine and check out the effectiveness. If they
work, good ... else ... dump ...
--vinayak-
/*
* vinayak dutt
* graduate student, ultrasound research
* mayo graduate school, rochester mn
*
* e-mail: v...@mayo.edu
* dutt.v...@mayo.edu
*
*/
#include "disclaimer.h"
Kurt Arbuckle
Russell Turpin (tur...@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: -*----
: I wrote:
: >> But the part that is summarized: "here is some preliminary
: >> research on some aspects of ayurveda ..." is troublesome. As
: >> it has been described in this newsgroup, ayurveda is not a
: >> scientific theory and simply cannot be tested as if it were.
: In article <3doeu0$d...@news.primenet.com>,
: Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
: > "According to the ancient and overwhelmingly, nay, even
: > ludicrously, wise and holy sage xyz, herbal preparation
: > ijk has the following effects on illnesses..."
: >
: > Religious overtones not withstanding, this sounds like a
: > perfectly viable, testable and falsifiable statement to me.
: There are two issues I would raise.
: (1) From what has been written here, I have the impression
: that ayurveda is more than just a collection of remedies,
: that it also includes some substantive theory. (a) The efficacy
: of remedies from a medical tradition does *not* validate the
: tradition's theory. .... And similarly, to
: restore ayurvedic medicine, its advocates must address *its*
: theory, not merely the efficacy of its remedies.
Your statement is very appealing, but when it gets right down to it, the
means for validating a theory often come long after the theory has been
utilized and more or less accepted on that basis. I believe the existence
of viruses was accepted well before anyone saw one. In fact, the claim
that science (in its current canonical form) is a superior method of
investigating reality, is itself based solely on the fact that it works --
it has proven useful in producing results.
Since modern science has not cured all problems (nor proven that it can
solve all problems), it is fair to inquire and see if it has limitations
that are caused by the very nature of its world view. Likewise, it should
be permissible on the same grounds to investigate other world views. The
only known criteria for doing that *is* the efficacy of their results.
: (1b) If, on the other hand, those who would restore ayurvedic
: medicine do not care about its theory and are concerned only
: with dredging effective remedies from its tradition, then there
: is very little to argue about. ... If the
: ayurvedic tradition is like most other prescientific medical
: traditions, it should have many useful concoctions, the research
: of which will add some to our knowledge, and some of which may
: provide more effective remedies for some problems that now exist.
True, but the problem comes when there is nothing in the medical world view
to explain away the result. _I.e._, there is no concoction as such.
An example would be the Washington D.C. crime study. (This isn't a strictly
medical example, but I want to use it because I find it dramatic. There
are less air tight examples more related to medicine, such as reduced
health insurance usage by Transcendental Meditators.)
The TM (Transcendental Meditation) organization claimed that 4000 people
doing the TM-Sidhi techniques together in a group could lower the crime
rate in D.C. 20% below predicted rates. They got 27 scientifically
oriented people who had sufficient credentials and who were not connected
with TM to agree in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
rate, and what test methodology would be acceptable to them. They signed a
written document setting all that out. The study even took into account
other crime reduction programs that were taking place at the same time.
The experiment was done, and it took over a year to analyze the results to
the satisfaction of the panel. Using the same statistical techniques that
would be used in say a medical study, the result was an 18% reduction in
crime rates compared to predicted levels with only 8 chances out of 100,000
that the result would have happened anyway.
This can not be explained away as the lucky creation of a medicine by
accident. The response will be to ignore it or invent objections that
would never even come up, if the experiment were of a more conventional
program (jobs for inner city youth, etc.). In fact, if it were some
conventional program and it worked this well (they don't, you know) people
would be handing out awards for it.
At the news conference at which John Hagelin announced the results, the
press (and this is why this is still on alt.journalism) asked a few
questions, but was much more interested in rumors that Hagelin was to get
the ig nobel prize -- a crank prize from MIT or some place. If journalists
are supposed to stir up the copmfortable, you'd think they would jump at a
chance to challenge established notions. Tain't so. Journalists, the one
from JAMA included, go for the easy targets, or so it seems.
Russell Turpin
In article <3e20dj$f...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
> The TM (Transcendental Meditation) organization claimed that 4000 people
> doing the TM-Sidhi techniques together in a group could lower the crime
> rate in D.C. 20% below predicted rates. They got 27 scientifically
> oriented people who had sufficient credentials and who were not connected
> with TM to agree in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
In that case, the "27 scientifically oriented people who had
sufficient credentials" were also fools. We do not have adequate
models of crime rates to accurately project them forward a year.
Note that hundreds of factors have been proposed as influential
on crime rates, from weather to the success of local sports
teams, many with some evidence. Anyone who sits on a panel and
agrees "in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
rate" is no scientist, regardless of credentials.
> ... Using the same statistical techniques that would be used in
> say a medical study, the result was an 18% reduction in crime
> rates compared to predicted levels with only 8 chances out of 100,000
> that the result would have happened anyway.
The statistical techniques used are meaningless absent a sound
model. Quite frankly, that the crime rate is 18% less than an
inane prediction (but still higher than last year's!) is *no*
evidence at all that the practice of TM by a portion of the
population lessens crime. (I suspect it does, for very mundane
reasons. But *this* study does not evince that.)
> ... The response will be to ignore it or invent objections
> that would never even come up, if the experiment were of a more
> conventional program (jobs for inner city youth, etc.). ...
Kurt Arbuckle is right that this kind of study is common. They
are the favorite fodder of law enforcement agencies and
politicians when discussing various programs. But he is wrong in
assuming that these "objections ... never even come up [for] a
more conventional program." These kinds of studies are routinely
criticized, often quite severely. I suspect many journalists
will not have much feel for distinguishing the kinds of things
that are variously called science, and may not even be aware that
large parts of "soft science" are routinely dismissed by many
scientists as nothing more than the kind of fuzzy thinking we
would expect of ... well, a religious movement.
Kurt Arbuckle
: -*-----
: In article <3e20dj$f...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
: > The TM (Transcendental Meditation) organization claimed that 4000 people
: > doing the TM-Sidhi techniques together in a group could lower the crime
: > rate in D.C. 20% below predicted rates. They got 27 scientifically
: > oriented people who had sufficient credentials and who were not connected
: > with TM to agree in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
: > rate, and what test methodology would be acceptable to them. ...
: In that case, the "27 scientifically oriented people who had
: sufficient credentials" were also fools. We do not have adequate
: models of crime rates to accurately project them forward a year.
: Note that hundreds of factors have been proposed as influential
: on crime rates, from weather to the success of local sports
: teams, many with some evidence. Anyone who sits on a panel and
: agrees "in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
: rate" is no scientist, regardless of credentials.
That's simply not true. There are reliable predictors for crime rates, and
they were used in the study. However, you have made my point beautifully,
that you will call anyone a fool who doesn't share your views on TM, even
if they are not TMers.
: > ... The response will be to ignore it or invent objections
: > that would never even come up, if the experiment were of a more
: > conventional program (jobs for inner city youth, etc.). ...
: Kurt Arbuckle is right that this kind of study is common. They
: are the favorite fodder of law enforcement agencies and
: politicians when discussing various programs. But he is wrong in
: assuming that these "objections ... never even come up [for] a
: more conventional program." These kinds of studies are routinely
: criticized, often quite severely. I suspect many journalists
: will not have much feel for distinguishing the kinds of things
: that are variously called science, and may not even be aware that
: large parts of "soft science" are routinely dismissed by many
: scientists as nothing more than the kind of fuzzy thinking we
: would expect of ... well, a religious movement.
Whew, UTexas is a state supported school. How are all those people in the
sociology dept. getting away with teaching religion? Sounds like everyone
is out of step but you.
Kurt
Lawson English
: AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: : John Hagelin did not show up at the MIT Museum to receive his Ig Nobel
: : Peace Prize. Probably the first time the TM movement has not tried to
: : squeeze every bit of p.r. juice out of every "honor" that comes their way.
: : Wonder why?
: Maybe you taught them to recognize a trap when they see one.
Lawson English
AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: John Hagelin did not show up at the MIT Museum to receive his Ig Nobel
: Peace Prize. Probably the first time the TM movement has not tried to
: squeeze every bit of p.r. juice out of every "honor" that comes their way.
: Wonder why?
--
Lawson English
: -*-----
: In article <3e20dj$f...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
: > The TM (Transcendental Meditation) organization claimed that 4000 people
: > doing the TM-Sidhi techniques together in a group could lower the crime
: > rate in D.C. 20% below predicted rates. They got 27 scientifically
: > oriented people who had sufficient credentials and who were not connected
: > with TM to agree in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
: > rate, and what test methodology would be acceptable to them. ...
: In that case, the "27 scientifically oriented people who had
: sufficient credentials" were also fools. We do not have adequate
: models of crime rates to accurately project them forward a year.
Such pontifications, without knowing who the 27 people were, or what the
study predicted or how it came to make those predictions, etc, seem to be
a tad "foolish" also...
In my humble opinion...
Lawson English
: [cross-posted from alt.meditation.transcendental]
: AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: : John Hagelin did not show up at the MIT Museum to receive his Ig Nobel
: : Peace Prize. Probably the first time the TM movement has not tried to
: : squeeze every bit of p.r. juice out of every "honor" that comes their way.
: : Wonder why?
What a truly odd person you are. Don't you remember that you posted this
a while back (date lost in bit-bucket, sorry)?
AA> Correction, Hagen won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize. A truly dubious
AA> honor.
I mean no-one has to wonder why Hagelin didn't show up to receive his
"truly dubious honor."
For those who wonder: "AA" stands for Andrew A. [Skolnick]
: --
Lawson English
: [cross-posted from sci.skeptic]
: JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
: : I have yet to see you or Lawson, or any of the other TM guys, admit that
: : you may be wrong. About any of TMs or Chopra's claims. You don the noble
: : and august cloak of the persecuted innovator struggling against the
: : implacable and unreasonable hostility of a self-satisfied institutional
: : science.
I thought that Chopra and Sharma prefacing their discussion of research
in their JAMA article with the words "although further investigation is
clearly needed..." was an admission of fallibility...
: : But you cynically steal that cloak from those who deserve it. You have the
: : dwarfed look in it of the apprentice Mickey Mouse in Fantasia in the
: : oversized garments of the Sorcerer. And you are just as silly and out of
: : your league as Mickey was as the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
How am I a cynic? How is Kurt a cynic? How do any of us "don the noble and
august cloak of the persecuted innovator?" And in what way are we being
cynical about it?
Tough questions, I know, but as a journalist, you are used to them, no?
Lawson English
Judy Stein (judy....@channel1.com) wrote:
: References: <3dvr9s$c...@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>
: <3dvr9s$c...@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <3d566h$6...@news.primenet.com>
: <3dnpa6$s...@news.primenet.com>
: Russell Turpin writes:
: <snip>
: > (1) From what has been written here, I have the impression
: > that ayurveda is more than just a collection of remedies,
: > that it also includes some substantive theory. (a) The efficacy
: > of remedies from a medical tradition does *not* validate the
: > tradition's theory. Drugs from aspirin to ephedrine to curare
: > were known in various forms to a variety of cultures. But this
: > does NOT validate the theory of humours (Hellenic medical
: > tradition), qi (traditional Chinese medicine), or the medical
: > notions of various South American tribes. To restore traditional
: > Hellenic medicine, its advocates must demonstrate the existence
: > of the four humours. To restore traditional Chinese medicine,
: > its advocates must develop a testable theory of qi and execute
: > the experiments that show its existence. And similarly, to
: > restore ayurvedic medicine, its advocates must address *its*
: > theory, not merely the efficacy of its remedies.
: Suppose, hypothetically, that the majority of the remedies and
: regimens of ayurveda (or any ancient medical tradition) were
: tested by the scientific method and found to be effective. What
: would this say about the theory behind the ancient tradition?
: Not a rhetorical question; I'm curious as to whether some
: isomorphism might then be sought between the ancient theories and
: the theories of modern biology (actually it would have to be a
: combination of psychology and neurophysiology and biology, since
: most ancient medical traditions include the functioning of the
: psyche as well as the physiology).
: > (1b) If, on the other hand, those who would restore ayurvedic
: > medicine do not care about its theory and are concerned only
: > with dredging effective remedies from its tradition, then there
: > is very little to argue about. This is something that modern
: > medicine has done with a variety of medical traditions. If the
: > ayurvedic tradition is like most other prescientific medical
: > traditions, it should have many useful concoctions, the research
: > of which will add some to our knowledge, and some of which may
: > provide more effective remedies for some problems that now exist.
: One point about ayurveda that hasn't been much emphasized here is
: its holistic nature, which I suggested above. The "prescription"
: that results from an ayurvedic consultation is usually not just a
: matter of a single remedy but encompasses a host of lifestyle
: factors. It may or may not be conclusive to isolate a single
: remedy and test its validity.
: > (2) Whether the proposed claim is useful and testable depends
: > on whether the "herbal preparation" is adequately described,
: > on how the set of illnesses are described, and on how the alleged
: > effects are described.
: Another important point is that ideally ayurveda is a system of
: health *maintenance*, or preventive health care. Theoretically,
: those who follow an ayurvedic lifestyle are much less likely to
: become ill in the first place. Obviously, testing this claim
: could only be done on a long-term, large-group statistical basis,
: by comparison with a control group following modern medical
: lifestyle recommendations.
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * judy....@channel1.com +
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: * RM 1.3 02274 * Furriers are animals too.
Lawson English
Judy Stein (judy....@channel1.com) wrote:
: References: <3e2itd$i...@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>
: <3e2itd$i...@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <3d566h$6...@news.primenet.com>
: <3doeu0$d...@news.primenet.com>
: Russell Turpin writes:
: <snip>
: > teams, many with some evidence. Anyone who sits on a panel and
: > agrees "in advance as to what factors would predict the crime
: > rate" is no scientist, regardless of credentials.
: You seem to be suggesting that this agreement in advance is in
: principle unscientific. Of course, it's just the opposite; it
: prevents the researchers from picking the most convenient factors
: to be considered *after* the study period, so as to ensure the
: desired result by selectively evaluating only the data that
: produce this result.
: <snip>
: > The statistical techniques used are meaningless absent a sound
: > model. Quite frankly, that the crime rate is 18% less than an
: > inane prediction (but still higher than last year's!) is *no*
: > evidence at all that the practice of TM by a portion of the
: > population lessens crime.
: You also appear to be maintaining that there is no way to predict
: the crime rate, and hence no way to determine whether *any*
: crime-prevention measure is effective. I bet there are quite a
: few criminologists who would be astonished by this notion.
: The "inane" prediction, by the way, was generated by time-series
: analysis, as I understand it. Are you familiar with this
: statistical technique?
: (I suspect it does, for very mundane
: > reasons. But *this* study does not evince that.)
: And what mundane reasons would those be, Russell?
: <snip>
: > Kurt Arbuckle is right that this kind of study is common. They
: > are the favorite fodder of law enforcement agencies and
: > politicians when discussing various programs. But he is wrong in
: > assuming that these "objections ... never even come up [for] a
: > more conventional program." These kinds of studies are routinely
: > criticized, often quite severely.
: Are they criticized on the basis you suggest, that there is *no*
: way to determine the effectiveness of crime-prevention measures?
: Or do the criticisms have to do with the specifics of a
: particular study's methodology?
: I suspect many journalists
: > will not have much feel for distinguishing the kinds of things
: > that are variously called science, and may not even be aware that
: > large parts of "soft science" are routinely dismissed by many
: > scientists as nothing more than the kind of fuzzy thinking we
: > would expect of ... well, a religious movement.
: And here you appear to be suggesting that social science in its
: entirety be discarded as useless.
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * judy....@channel1.com +
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: * RM 1.3 02274 * This is my world; you just happen to be in it.
Lawson English
: Lawson:
: I read your summary of Craig Lambert's article on the Chopra brothers. I'm
: a journalist and an editor, and that kind of profile has a name in the
: trade. It's called "a blowjob."
Y'know, I got to wondering. Recently a person on comp.sys.intel posted an
article from AOL praising Intel for its handling of the Pentium FDIV
issue. Turns out that the person, in their little AOL "bio" listed
their occupation as "controller/Intel."
Being of suspicious mind, I said to myself, "let's look-see at what
joeh5...@aol.com's bio says about him..."
Behold:
occupation: screenwriter -experimenter.
Care to tell us what kind of journalist/editor you are?
JoeH510226
[[[At the news conference at which John Hagelin announced the results, the
press (and this is why this is still on alt.journalism) asked a few
questions, but was much more interested in rumors that Hagelin was to get
the ig nobel prize -- a crank prize from MIT or some place. If
journalists
are supposed to stir up the copmfortable, you'd think they would jump at a
chance to challenge established notions. Tain't so. Journalists, the one
from JAMA included, go for the easy targets, or so it seems.]]]
Kurt:
As a working journalist, I can assure you that journalists go after New
Age crackpots far too infrequently. I know far too many of my colleagues
who are so scientifically and critically illiterate that they couldn't
punch their way out of a wet paper New Age bag. There are many reasons for
this, including the fact that many journalism schools teach TV video
packaging more than reporting or critical thinking.
Take the TM crime study. What would be the operative mechanism for the
claimed effect? Telekinesis+precognition+telepathy+remote hypnotic
suggestion on a mass scale? Remote Vulcan Mind Meld? Or does the
mass-meditation improve the aroma of the atmosphere, which calms down
criminals? Or were they really spiking the reservoirs with Amrit Khalesh
and vegetables?
Or gobbledeygook about "altering balance of Unified field of
Consciousness."
Many journalists are untrained enough to be snow-jobbed by such blather.
Andrew Skolnick quoted an old saying that journalism is to "Comfort the
afflicted, and to aflict the comfortable."
I agree. But I generally approach a story with a more simple question:
"OK, who's full of shit here?"
This simple question protects one from being suckered by self-interersted
politicians, greedy conservatives, sloppy thinking moderates, bleeding
heart liberals, poverty pimps, left and right wing lunatics, religions of
all stripes, and special pleaders.
When Pons and his partner announced Cold Fusion, I wished them well,
hoping it would be true, but my bullshit detector started ringing.
When Gallo and Baltimore got in trouble for scientific improprieties, I
happened to be a fan of both. But, if they're in any way full of shit, let
the chips fall where they may. I expect no less when others judge me. And
it doesn't bother me (much) when I am exposed as wrong. It is
uncomfortable, sometimes painful, but I prefer truth over comfort. I admit
when I am wrong, if it is proved to me.
I have yet to see you or Lawson, or any of the other TM guys, admit that
you may be wrong. About any of TMs or Chopra's claims. You don the noble
and august cloak of the persecuted innovator struggling against the
implacable and unreasonable hostility of a self-satisfied institutional
science.
But you cynically steal that cloak from those who deserve it. You have the
dwarfed look in it of the apprentice Mickey Mouse in Fantasia in the
oversized garments of the Sorcerer. And you are just as silly and out of
your league as Mickey was as the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Cheers,
Joe
JoeH510226
You are truly a humorless shnunck, aren't you? If you have this much
difficulty recognizing irony and humor, it is no wonder you don't
recognize the utter silliness of Chopra's mind-over-matter health claims.
You're like a punch drunk fighter who hears the bell (Skolnick!) and comes
rumbling out looking for a fight.
Cheers,
Joe
Lawson English (eng...@primenet.com) wrote:
[[[: [cross-posted from alt.meditation.transcendental]
: AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: : John Hagelin did not show up at the MIT Museum to receive his Ig Nobel
: : Peace Prize. Probably the first time the TM movement has not tried to
: : squeeze every bit of p.r. juice out of every "honor" that comes their
way.
: : Wonder why?
What a truly odd person you are. Don't you remember that you posted this
a while back (date lost in bit-bucket, sorry)?
AA> Correction, Hagen won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize. A truly dubious
AA> honor.
I mean no-one has to wonder why Hagelin didn't show up to receive his
"truly dubious honor."
For those who wonder: "AA" stands for Andrew A. [Skolnick] ]]]]
James Aldridge
hand.
James Aldridge
ja...@onramp.net
Lawson English
: All in favor of starting a sci.med.lawson subgroup, raise your byte
: hand.
Actually, only a relative few messages are from moi, personally.
: James Aldridge
: ja...@onramp.net
JoeH510226
joeh5...@aol.com's bio says about him..."
Lawson English wrote:
[[[Being of suspicious mind, I said to myself, "let's look-see at what
joeh5...@aol.com's bio says about him..."
Behold:
occupation: screenwriter -experimenter.
Care to tell us what kind of journalist/editor you are?]]]
Lawson, darling,
Those AOL screen bios are for the chat lines, you boob.
I am the Story Editor of KCOP TV News in Los Angeles. I am responsible for
story selection, story shaping, and reporter script editing. Reporters in
the field report to me for all editorial matters. I report directly to
only the Executive Producer and the News Director. I also supervise a
dozen people who work on the Assignment Desk and as Researchers. If you
would like to verify that, call KCOP and speak to the News Director, Jeff
Wald. While you're at it, ask him if he thinks I'm any good at my job. And
when he tells you that I'm one of the best in the business, hint
ever-so-gently that it's time for a raise. As I'm obviously giving you a
pounding you can't handle, or you wouldn't sink to such assinine cheap
shots as your post above.
I have also written many articles for the New York Daily News and the
Village Voice, but I have been primarily a researcher on television news
documentaries, and for three years I was Assignment Editor and Editorial
Coordinator for the national TV tabloid news magazine show, Hard Copy.
Call or write their anchor, Barry Nolan, and ask about me.
At WNEW TV News, I won a New York area Emmy Award for Best Researcher on a
Documentary in 1984, for "The Mob In Atlantic City." I was the researcher
or researcher/associate producer on seven one-hour news documentaries. My
News Director there was John Parsons, who can now be reached at Parco
Productions in NYC. Call him and ask him about me.
By the way, my brother Pete Hamill is a journalist as well, currently at
New York Newsday and Esquire. My brother Denis Hamill is a newspaper
columnist for the New York Daily News. My brother John Hamill is a former
reporter. All three of them are also novelists and screenwriters. My
brother Tom is a chemical engineer, and was a physics teacher. The science
stuff, I got from him.
I grew up in newsrooms, hanging around reporters, and I've personally
known and learned from some of the best in the business. I imbibed young a
tradition of tough, no-bullshit journalism. We eat guys like you for
breakfast.
I am, by the way, also a screenwriter and experimenter.
I have written three screenplays, and talking to you is a daily experiment
in discovering the correlation coefficient between patience and futility.
O, and did I mention, I once received an award for perfect attendence in
Kindergarten? Now, if Triguna had one of those, I'd be willing to change
my mind and join TM. No questions asked.
And when you unearth my arrest record, I do have an explanation. "I swear,
your honor, I wasn't driving. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!"
Cheers,
Joe
Judy Stein
Russell Turpin writes:
<snip>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * judy....@channel1.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* RM 1.3 02274 * Furriers are animals too.
Judy Stein
Russell Turpin writes:
<snip>
<snip>
<snip>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * judy....@channel1.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* RM 1.3 02274 * This is my world; you just happen to be in it.
JoeH510226
[[[Suppose, hypothetically, that the majority of the remedies and
regimens of ayurveda (or any ancient medical tradition) were
tested by the scientific method and found to be effective. What
would this say about the theory behind the ancient tradition?]]]
Absolutely nothing. Going out to the rural country villas to escape the
"bad air" in the cities during the Black Plague, worked, after a fashion.
It was effective. But because they escaped the densely packed
concentration of rats and infectious parasites. The effectiveness of the
treatment proved absolutely nothing about the theory. Lucky break. Like
finding a few herbs that work, after feeding thousands to folks that
didn't work.
[[[Not a rhetorical question; I'm curious as to whether some
isomorphism might then be sought between the ancient theories and
the theories of modern biology (actually it would have to be a
combination of psychology and neurophysiology and biology, since
most ancient medical traditions include the functioning of the
psyche as well as the physiology).]]]
Hardly isomophic. More like heaven and earth.
Cheers,
Joe
Lawson English
: [cross-posted from sci.skeptic]
: JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
: : Those AOL screen bios are for the chat lines, you boob.
: : I am the Story Editor of KCOP TV News in Los Angeles. I am responsible for
[impressive journalistic credentials deleted]
: : I am, by the way, also a screenwriter and experimenter.
: : I have written three screenplays, and talking to you is a daily experiment
: : in discovering the correlation coefficient between patience and futility.
: : O, and did I mention, I once received an award for perfect attendence in
: : Kindergarten? Now, if Triguna had one of those, I'd be willing to change
: : my mind and join TM. No questions asked.
: : And when you unearth my arrest record, I do have an explanation. "I swear,
: : your honor, I wasn't driving. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!"
: : Cheers,
: : Joe
Thanks for the clarification.
: --
Lawson English
: : JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
: : : Those AOL screen bios are for the chat lines, you boob.
: : : I am the Story Editor of KCOP TV News in Los Angeles. I am responsible for
: [impressive journalistic credentials deleted] <===
My last thankyou didn't emphasize the above statement enough, and left a
bit of self-deprecating humor in about a traffic violation.
My thanks for clarification was for JoeH510226's journalistic record, not
his driving record.
Lawson English
AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: (I would, but I'm afraid everyone will see I byte my nails.) :-)
Lawson English
AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: Joe --
: Normally when you swat a fruit fly with a sledge hammer, you get an
: effect.
: Alas, not here I suspect.
: Nevertheless, a massively powerful and precisely placed return of the
: serve, ol' chap. Cheers -- Andrew
: Andrew A. Skolnick
Lawson English
AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: Joe -- O.K. I was wrong. You at least got a thank you. -- Andrew
JoeH510226
[[[[: : [cross-posted from sci.skeptic]
: : JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
: : : Those AOL screen bios are for the chat lines, you boob.
: : : I am the Story Editor of KCOP TV News in Los Angeles. I am
responsible for
: [impressive journalistic credentials deleted] <===
My last thankyou didn't emphasize the above statement enough, and left a
bit of self-deprecating humor in about a traffic violation.
My thanks for clarification was for JoeH510226's journalistic record, not
his driving record.]]]]
And, of course (I forgot to add), my opinions on this usenet newsgroup are
only my personal opinions. I speak for no one else, neither employers,
past employers, relatives, nor friends.
But I do on occasion speak for a 93-million-year-old transcendental
warrior named Hingyarots. (He once kicked Ramtha's ass in a turf battle
over who got earth as their inter-galactic E-mail address.) I channel his
wisdom and messages to the world through automatic writing on the Internet
(using the easier and more elegant AOL windows interface).
You shall be hearing from Hingyarots in the future. I can feel it.
Cheers,
Joe
Lawson English
AASkolnick (aasko...@aol.com) wrote:
: Now Joe,
: Remember it's Christmas. (Do TMers celebrate Christmas?) Where's your
: Christmas spirit? (Or are you actually practicing it -- you know, "'tis
: better to give than to receive?") -- Tiny Tim :-)
Russell Turpin
My detractors have taken me to task. They say that my hard-eyed
view of the social sciences is offbase, that there *are* accurate
models for predicting things such as crime rate, and that my
skepticism is misplaced. Maybe. But maybe not. Let's see how
firm their convictions are.
Judy Stein (judy....@channel1.com) wrote:
> You also appear to be maintaining that there is no way to predict
> the crime rate, and hence no way to determine whether *any*
> crime-prevention measure is effective. I bet there are quite a
> few criminologists who would be astonished by this notion.
Similarly, Kurt Arbuckle writes:
> That's simply not true. There are reliable predictors for crime
> rates, and they were used in the study. ...
Very well. I invite Kurt Arbuckle and Judy Stein to:
o demonstrate how well these sociological models work,
o publicly demonstrate my ignorance in this regard, and
o make money in the process.
All they have to do is predict changes in crime rate for, say, ten
cities. If they agree, I will choose the ten cities. They need
only predict the change in murder rate for each city, in 1995
over 1994, categorized quite liberally as follows:
o down more than 12%,
o down between 4% and 12%,
o less than 4% change either way,
o up between 4% and 12%,
o up more than 12%.
For each correct categorization, I will forfeit $50. For each
wrong categorization, they will pay me $50. (I won't ask for
odds, even though they are claiming that these things can be
*accurately* predicted.)
Is it a wager? Are these folks willing to put their money where
their mouth is? Can they find a criminologist who will take this
wager?? This should be easy money if they are right. If they
can't make money (or can't find a sociologist who can make money)
this way, then the TM study they reference is what I first
labelled it: bullshit. Conversely, if one of the necessary
assumptions of the study holds up, they have the opportunity to
do something much more persuasive (and profitable!) than ply
rhetoric.
What say, Arbuckle? Stein? Want to take my money? Who do you
propose as judge and stakeholder? (I propose Mike Godwin of the
EFF, if he is willing.)
Kurt Arbuckle
: -*----
: Very well. I invite Kurt Arbuckle and Judy Stein to:
: o demonstrate how well these sociological models work,
: o publicly demonstrate my ignorance in this regard, and
We'll come back to this one in a minute.
: o make money in the process.
: All they have to do is predict changes in crime rate for, say, ten
: cities. If they agree, I will choose the ten cities. They need
: only predict the change in murder rate for each city, in 1995
: over 1994, categorized quite liberally as follows:
I assume that this is just a silly pretext to get the approval of those that
agree with you already. Except when the study is about TM and produces
favorable results, you are probably not critical of social science at all.
If the results had been unfavorable, you might even quote them.
No one would be willing to do 10 studies for 500 bucks, but I"ll demonstrate
your ignorance for free. Predictors do not tell crime rates in advance. They
are measures that correlate to a second phenomena (crime in this
case) so that knowing one predicts the other to a known degree of
probabilty. Granted it's not as good as a lab experiment, but it *is*
a reliable method to use in the *real* world.
Since I can't know the predictors until after they have occured (e.g. the
temperature -- crime rates are correlated to higher temperatures, for
"mundane" reasons), I can't take your bet. Either you were "ignorant"
of that, or your "bet" was an intentional distortion.
Here's a quote from one of the 27 people you called a "fool."
The claim can be made plausibly that the promised practical
social impact of this research significantly exceeds that of
any other ongoing social-psychological research program. For
this reason alone this research along with the theory that
informs it desreves the most serious evaluative consideration
by the social science communuty.
That is all that the TM organization is asking for. BTW, the next time
you are jogging around campus, you might want to drop in on this person
and tell him you think he is a fool. He is:
David V. Edwards, Ph.D.
Professor of Government
University of Texas at Austin
Kurt
Russell Turpin
In article <3e7okb$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
> I assume that this is just a silly pretext to get the approval of
> those that agree with you already. Except when the study is about
> TM and produces favorable results, you are probably not critical
If you have access to a long spool, I invite you to go read what
I posted about Sandra Harding's book "The Science Question in
Feminism" in soc.feminism only a mere two or three months ago,
which book received the 1987 Jessie Bernard Award of the American
Sociological Association. (Which in turn should cause any
thinking members of this group to blush.) Or if you have been
reading sci.med long, you would remember some of the things that
I have said about physicians who want to study violence as an
epidemiological phenomenon. In any case: you are wrong. There
are many people on the net who know that I routinely criticize
some of the things that are called science in the social fields.
> No one would be willing to do 10 studies for 500 bucks, ...
The way you wrote, I would have thought the models would already
be developed. Will you take the bet even for the one city that
your much touted study concerns? (Wasn't it Miami?) We are
supposed to put great stock in the study's prediction for 1994.
Just extend it to 1995.
> ... I'll demonstrate your ignorance for free. Predictors do not
> tell crime rates in advance. ...
This demonstrates your ignorance, not mine. I didn't say
anything about statistical predictors. I pointed out that we
cannot accurately predict crime rates in advance. And this is
what *you* assume when you write that TM caused an 18% decline
from the *predicted* crime rate (though still an absolute
increase, right?) and that this almost certainly (99,992 out of
100,000) had to be caused by the TM practice. If the crime rate
cannot be accurately predicted, what importance is it if some
year it is 18% less than a *predicted* value?
> Here's a quote from one of the 27 people you called a "fool."
>
> The claim can be made plausibly that the promised practical
> social impact of this research significantly exceeds that of
> any other ongoing social-psychological research program. ...
I assume the speaker knows more about "ongoing social-psychological
research programs" than do I. Giving credence to his expertise, I
can only say that this is a scathing denunciation of most such
research.
> ... For this reason alone this research along with the theory
> that informs it desreves the most serious evaluative
> consideration by the social science communuty.
>
> That is all that the TM organization is asking for. ...
I have no doubt that the TM organization will have a much easier
time being taken seriously in the social science community than in
the hard science community.
Russell Turpin
Curiously enough, today's Houston Chronicle (1 Jan. 1995) has a
front page article titled "Local Homicide Count Plunges in 1994."
One police spokesperson put it well. "There are psychologists
and psychiatrists all over the place doing ten-year studies on
this stuff, and there is still no accounting for it."
Russell Turpin
Just to make sure, I went back to see what Kurt Arbuckle said about
the study he touts.
In article <3e20dj$f...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
> The experiment was done, and it took over a year to analyze the results to
> the satisfaction of the panel. Using the same statistical techniques that
> would be used in say a medical study, the result was an 18% reduction in
> crime rates compared to predicted levels with only 8 chances out of 100,000
> that the result would have happened anyway.
Yep. Nothing here about statistical predictors. Just the claim
that there was a predicted level and the crime rate was 18% below
that.
Well, if this is what the study did, Kurt Arbuckle (or someone
who can do this) should be happy to take me up on my wager. If,
on the other hand, this is *not* what the study says, I invite
Arbuckle to fax me the paper so that I can help him interpret
it more accurately. (He can e-mail me and I will send him my
fax number.)
Bernd Kassler
(tur...@cs.utexas.edu)
on 01 Jan 95 you wrote in alt.meditation.transcendental
on behalf of topic : Predicting crime rate? (was: social science stupidity)
>-*----
>
Poor Russell !
You have already lost.
You lost because your opponents will very quickly define a "spiritual
scientist", a "spiritual criminologist" or a "spiritual sociologist" who
then will demonstrate be "scientific spiritualism" that TM will reduce the
annual tonnage of poodlepoop by an amount of 3.141529 %.
but nonetheless skeptickal greetings :-))
CU and do not forget: tat twam asi
min...@toppoint.de..............(Bernd Kassler, Kiel, Germany)
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
Kurt Arbuckle
: -*----
: Just to make sure, I went back to see what Kurt Arbuckle said about
: the study he touts.
: In article <3e20dj$f...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
: > The experiment was done, and it took over a year to analyze the results to
: > the satisfaction of the panel. Using the same statistical techniques that
: > would be used in say a medical study, the result was an 18% reduction in
: > crime rates compared to predicted levels with only 8 chances out of 100,000
: > that the result would have happened anyway.
: Yep. Nothing here about statistical predictors. Just the claim
: that there was a predicted level and the crime rate was 18% below
: that.
Well I'm sorry if I didn't say it clearly enough. I never meant to say
that the crime level was predicted in advance. The "predicted" crime
level was based on the statistical work, not to a certainty, but to a level
of probability.
If you are trying to imply that I was trying to mislead or change my position,
then you're wrong, which can be seen from the fact that I mentioned that
the work was done *after* the experiment, and used *statistical techniques.*
: Well, if this is what the study did, Kurt Arbuckle (or someone
: who can do this) should be happy to take me up on my wager. If,
: on the other hand, this is *not* what the study says, I invite
: Arbuckle to fax me the paper so that I can help him interpret
: it more accurately. (He can e-mail me and I will send him my
: fax number.)
Although the fact that you misunderstood me (for which I take the blame)
was not clear to me when I responded to your "bet" post, that fact should
have been clear to you as soon as you read that response. For you to jump
around now as if to say "you said it, so you're stuck with it" is a bit
childish, IMHO.
Kurt
Roger D. Nelson
I suggest anyone who might wish to play this game do a power analysis.
Possibly Russell did, though I would guess not. In any case, on the
face of it, my horseback estimate of the statistical power suggests
that the predictors in this study are unlikely to allow the precision
of categorization Russell proposes, except on a statistical basis,
even if the TM study is quite correct and veridical. Make it binary and
you will have a fair game.
--
Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993
email: rdnelson@.princeton.edu
Kurt Arbuckle
: -*-----: In any case: you are wrong. There
: are many people on the net who know that I routinely criticize
: some of the things that are called science in the social fields.
You clearly criticize *some.*
: > No one would be willing to do 10 studies for 500 bucks, ...
: The way you wrote, I would have thought the models would already
: be developed. Will you take the bet even for the one city that
: your much touted study concerns? (Wasn't it Miami?) We are
: supposed to put great stock in the study's prediction for 1994.
: Just extend it to 1995.
You seem to have deleted my explanation, which showed that we have
a misusderstanding (which I did not realize, and which I am willing
to take the blame for -- see my response to your new thread about me
personally).
: > ... I'll demonstrate your ignorance for free. Predictors do not
: > tell crime rates in advance. ...
: This demonstrates your ignorance, not mine. I didn't say
: anything about statistical predictors. I pointed out that we
: cannot accurately predict crime rates in advance. And this is
: what *you* assume when you write that TM caused an 18% decline
: from the *predicted* crime rate (though still an absolute
: increase, right?) and that this almost certainly (99,992 out of
: 100,000) had to be caused by the TM practice. If the crime rate
: cannot be accurately predicted, what importance is it if some
: year it is 18% less than a *predicted* value?
It *can* be predicted, with a degree of probability, but only after
the predictors are known. The reason the panel was committed in advance
as to what methodology to use, was to prevent anyone from trying to change
the predictors to fit (or not fit) the actual results. If you know
how the predictors came out, but you don't know the crime rate, you can
say there is x% chance the crime rate was y. Then you can compare to the
actual crime rate. In this case the chance of having the actual crime rate
that was observed is only 0.00008 or 0.008%
: > Here's a quote from one of the 27 people you called a "fool."
: >
: > The claim can be made plausibly that the promised practical
: > social impact of this research significantly exceeds that of
: > any other ongoing social-psychological research program. ...
: I assume the speaker knows more about "ongoing social-psychological
: research programs" than do I. Giving credence to his expertise, I
: can only say that this is a scathing denunciation of most such
: research.
You say that because it didn't come out the way you wanted it to.
Tough luck.
Kurt
Lawson English
: Hi Russell
: (tur...@cs.utexas.edu)
: on 01 Jan 95 you wrote in alt.meditation.transcendental
: on behalf of topic : Predicting crime rate? (was: social science stupidity)
: >-*----
: >
: Poor Russell !
: You have already lost.
: You lost because your opponents will very quickly define a "spiritual
: scientist", a "spiritual criminologist" or a "spiritual sociologist" who
: then will demonstrate be "scientific spiritualism" that TM will reduce the
: annual tonnage of poodlepoop by an amount of 3.141529 %.
BUT, was it calculated on a Pentium?
: but nonetheless skeptickal greetings :-))
: CU and do not forget: tat twam asi
: min...@toppoint.de..............(Bernd Kassler, Kiel, Germany)
: ## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
--
Russell Turpin
In article <3e9bgt$i...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
> Well I'm sorry if I didn't say it clearly enough. I never meant to
> trying to imply that I was trying to mislead ..., then you're wrong ...
I'm happy to take Arbuckle's word that he did not intend to
mislead. Now on to substantive issues:
(1) There is a *vast* difference between showing that a factor
*causes* a decline in some measurable by exhibiting a
result different from a reliable prediction, and merely showing
that a factor is a statistical predictor of the measurable.
Surface properties of complex systems, such as the murder rate
in a city, can have hundreds of statistical predictors, many of
which are not causal.
(2) Persuading a bunch of scholars to agree beforehand on the
set of important factors for a poorly modeled measurable has
*nothing* to do with science, and everything to do with
meretricious showboating. I am curious: what factors were
included? Average daily high temperature? Number of clear
nights? Success of local sports teams? Jobless rate (general
and of young men)? National crime rate? Changes in local
political climate? Average price of recreational drugs?
Turnover of drug dealers? Tell us: did this group of esteemed
scholars miss any of the factors that I list above?
(3) Statistical analyses depend on a host of assumptions. The
claim that there is only probability of 8 out of a 100,000
that some correlation is due to chance is *not* an absolute.
Such claims are implicitly followed by "... assuming that we have
correctly taken into account all the relevant factors." In the
case of crime rates, the one thing that *can* be said for sure is
that no one (and no group of esteemed scholars) knows all the
relevant factors. To quote this probability as if it were an
absolute fact instead of conditioned on a known falsehood *does*
mislead, whether this is intended or not.
Now: Arbuckle may not take my word about my intentions, but I do
not point out this fallacy just because I dislike the results of
*this* study. I have pointed out this kind of fallacy many, many
times on the net, for issues both mundane and extraordinary, in
this newsgroup and elsewhere.
Note, also, that nothing I write above disparages sophisticated
statistical analysis. Rather, I point out that the
interpretation of such analyses must keep in mind the assumptions
that went into them. I am somewhat sympathetic to the claim
frequently made by social scientists that they must make broad
assumptions, because firm knowledge is so hard to come by in the
areas they want to study. But that does *not* mean that we
should forget that these assumptions were made, or act as if the
conclusion were just as strong despite them.
Kurt Arbuckle
Glad to see we're past the part where you simply label everyone else
a "fool."
: (1) There is a *vast* difference between showing that a factor
: *causes* a decline in some measurable by exhibiting a
: result different from a reliable prediction,
This is what the study does. Are you reading my posts at all?
: and merely showing
: that a factor is a statistical predictor of the measurable.
You must use the statistical predictor to arrive at the "reliable
prediction." They are the control variables. They are not the hypothesis
being tested, although their correlation does have to be shown.
: Surface properties of complex systems, such as the murder rate
Murder rate by itself is a bad choice, because there are not enough of
them to get sufficient statistical power. I would have thought that
would be obvious to you since your knowledge is so vast you can critique
a study you have never seen. Note my generosity in not challenging whether
the murder *rate* is a "complex system."
: in a city, can have hundreds of statistical predictors, many of
: which are not causal.
All of which can be and was tested for in the study. You forgot to
mention that the reliabilty of the data (crime statistics) has to also
be tested.
: (2) Persuading a bunch of scholars to agree beforehand on the
: set of important factors for a poorly modeled measurable
"Poorly" is a reative term, and if the correlation is low and the effect
small, then you'd have questionable results. But if the correlation
of the predictors are high enough, and the effect large enough then you
can reject the null hypothesis to a knowable degree of probability.
: has
: *nothing* to do with science, and everything to do with
: meretricious showboating.
If you don't like "showboating," I suggest you stop doing it.
: I am curious: what factors were
: included?
Lesser minds would have thought it more consistent to ask this question
*before* you rejected the study. ROTFL!
: Average daily high temperature? Number of clear
: nights? Success of local sports teams? Jobless rate (general
: and of young men)? National crime rate? Changes in local
: political climate? Average price of recreational drugs?
: Turnover of drug dealers? Tell us: did this group of esteemed
: scholars miss any of the factors that I list above?
You either don't know what you're talking about, or you think I don't
(or both). The question isn't whether something was missed, rather it
is whether what was considered was sufficient. If one control variable
accounts for 95% of the effect without the independent variable, and the
effect with the independent variable is great enough, then you don't
need 100 other control variables that only add up to 5% of the original
effect.
Several control variables were tested. At least one -- one requested by
a *physicist* on the panel -- geomagnetic field fluctuations, was rejected.
(I suspect it was proposed as a ringer.)
Others included seasonal crime trends, temperature, percipitation, prior
crime trends in D.C., weekly cycles, etc.
: (3) Statistical analyses depend on a host of assumptions. The
: claim that there is only probability of 8 out of a 100,000
: that some correlation is due to chance is *not* an absolute.
Of course it's not an absolute, it's a probability.
: Such claims are implicitly followed by "... assuming that we have
: correctly taken into account all the relevant factors."
In any study that I would listen to, they would have to demonstrate it
not just assume it. You clearly do not understand this kind of study.
: In the
: case of crime rates, the one thing that *can* be said for sure is
: that no one (and no group of esteemed scholars) knows all the
: relevant factors.
Nor is it necessary to know *all* the variables. See above.
: To quote this probability as if it were an
: absolute fact instead of conditioned on a known falsehood *does*
: mislead, whether this is intended or not.
I apologized before, because I thought I had mislead you. Now I see that
you still don't have a clue. It's not enough to know the jargan, you have to
know what it means. You haven't even read the study.
: Now: Arbuckle may not take my word about my intentions, but I do
: not point out this fallacy just because I dislike the results of
: *this* study. I have pointed out this kind of fallacy many, many
: times on the net, for issues both mundane and extraordinary, in
: this newsgroup and elsewhere.
Then you are a crackpot, who not only doesn't know what he is talking
about, but doesn't even know that.
: Note, also, that nothing I write above disparages sophisticated
: statistical analysis. Rather, I point out that the
: interpretation of such analyses must keep in mind the assumptions
: that went into them. I am somewhat sympathetic to the claim
: frequently made by social scientists that they must make broad
: assumptions, because firm knowledge is so hard to come by in the
: areas they want to study. But that does *not* mean that we
: should forget that these assumptions were made, or act as if the
: conclusion were just as strong despite them.
Likewise, grounds can *always* be found to criticize *any* study, if one
wants to; even in "hard" science. The strength of a study like this
can be demonstrated.
In this study it was established that a group of 4,000 doing TM and the
TM-sidhi program in WAshington, D.C. can reduce the crime rate by 18% below
predicted levels, with only 8 chances out of 100,000 that it happenned
randomly. That is a strong study, whether you like it or not.
I'll give you the last word.
Kurt
Kurt Arbuckle
deleted you from this thread.
If you just have to know how it comes out, tune in to alt.meditation.
transcendental (meditation beyond the teeth). Warning! These things
rarely ever actually get resolved.
While here, I read some ohter posts. I was impressed with what some of
you had to say.
Best wishes,
Kurt
Russell Turpin
I wrote this before my ski trip last week, but just now made the
final edit. Enjoy.
-*-----
Since I have been given the last word, I will try to do something
useful with it. This post will review some basic concepts behind
statistical modeling. I have put alt.journalism back into the
distribution, because journalists often report on the results of
scientific research. To too many journalist, a study is a study
is a study. One of the things I will do in this post is explore
how studies differ qualitatively, and how what sounds like the
same statistic -- "only 8 chances out of 100,000 that it happened
randomly" -- can have very different meanings depending on the
kind of statistical model that was used and on what was studied.
This understanding is vital to anyone -- journalist, scientist,
or layperson -- who wants to interpret statistical results in a
rational fashion.
What I explain below can be found in many texts on applied
probability and on statistical modeling. I will not delve into
the details of the math. The issues I want to address do not
require doing so. None of it the ideas are original, though any
mistakes are my own.
Let's begin simply. Suppose you take a quarter out of your
pocket and flip it. What is the probability that it will land
heads? We all know this: 1/2. What often gets overlooked is
that we are applying a statistical model -- that of the fair coin
-- to a real quarter, and most real quarters are not precisely
fair. Minor deviation does not matter for most purposes. But
what if our random device is rigged, as often happens with dice
and roulette wheels, and occasionally even with coins? If the
purpose is important to us, such as big-stakes gambling or
distributed agreement protocols controlling ICBMs, we might want
to test that our random device fits the statistical model we want
to apply. To do this, we might "flip the coin" many times and
apply various "randomness tests." But while we have made some
advance and eliminated some assumptions, these tests also apply a
statistical model and assumptions are involved in this
application. Sophisticated models might let us make fewer or
what we consider more reasonable assumptions than simpler
statistical models, but assumptions cannot be eliminated from
statistical modeling.
Some assumptions in applying a model come from the mathematical
assumptions of the model. Other assumptions are more difficult
to express and concern more application of the model to the real
situation of concern. A gaming house might apply the most
sophisticated randomness tests to the die it purchases, only to
have its own employees swap out the tested ones for rigged ones
before and after the crucial play. What are the odds of this?
It is something that randomness tests cannot tell us. The most
important fact about statistical models is the following:
1. ALL STATISTICAL MODELS CARRY ASSUMPTIONS
Every statistical model is based on assumptions that it
cannot test or give a probability for. All the probabilities
derived from the model are conditioned by these assumptions.
More sophisticated models may test some of the assumptions of
the simpler model, but no matter how sophisticated one's
model, one cannot eliminate all assumptions that are untested
by the model.
In the probability and philosophical literature, if one assigns
probabilities for the untested assumptions, these are called
prior probabilities, or just priors for short. If we had a
universally agreed way to assign priors, we could build
statistical models that gave absolute, unconditioned
probabilities. Like Spock on Star Trek, we could declare "there
is probability .37678 of stellar collapse." But there is no one
right way to assign priors. If Spock were more careful, he would
say "I have applied model X and it gives probability ..." This
would let Kirk know that there are assumptions behind the stated
probability. The likelihood of these relevant assumptions is
something that must be qualitatively addressed, through
non-statistical argument, common sense, etc. (As is done in some
philosophy and probability literature, I will use the term
"likelihood" where there is no model to calculate exact
probabilities.) This gives rise to a second important fact of
statistical modeling.
2. STATISTICAL MODELS DEPEND ON QUALITATIVE UNDERSTANDING
The applicability of a statistical model to a real situation
must at bottom be addressed by qualitative (not statistical)
understanding and argument. All probabilities calculated are
only as good as the model's applicability.
Let's now move to a more substantive example. A researcher wants
to investigate a potential cancer drugs. She has a stock supply
of white mice, from a strain particularly prone to certain kinds
of cancer. She gives some mice (the lucky experimentals) the
drug, and the other mice not (the poor controls). Lo and behold,
the experimentals develop less cancer. Using a simple
statistical model, she calculates that there is "only 8 chances
out of 100,000 that it happened randomly." It is a strong study.
There are several nice things about this kind of experiment.
First, it only has two significant random variables: which mice
received treatment and which got cancer. The researcher fairly
safely assumes that the experimental mice and control mice are a
random division of a common sample, because her grad student
numbered the mice and her PC used a good pseudo-random number
generator to determine which mice were treated. Moreover, all
the mice come from the same carefully bred strain, limiting
variance among them. They live in the same cages, eat the same
food, drink the same water, breathe the same air, and get the
same care. In other words, there are very few uncontrolled
variables. (In an earlier version of the experiment, a grad
student was caught feeding cheetos to a few of the mice, and he
was summarily beheaded by his graduate advisor because this
introduced a new variable into the experiment.)
Nonetheless, the experiment assumes that there is no hidden
coupling between a mouse's response to cancer and how the mice
were divided into experimental and controls remains an
assumption. It is difficult to test this assumption, because
unlike a dice, which can be rolled many times, each mouse dies
only once. The biologist's model also assumes that there are no
uncontrolled factors in the experiment that might cause a
difference mistakenly attributed to her drug. The considerations
above make these assumptions seem quite reasonable and likely to
most scientists ... if you can keep the grad student with the
cheetos at bay.
The biologist is luckier than her sister, the zoologist, who
wants to study the effect of hormones on aggressive behavior.
For the purposes of the zoologist's experiment, her mice must
live several generations in common quarters. This means that
each lives under different conditions, as some are able to find
the best nests, the most mates, and the first place at the food
tray, while others are less lucky. The problem is that her
control group and her experimental group eventually differ
statistically in these factors. In the experimental group, a few
ubermice manage to do very well for themselves while the
lumpenmice make do. In the control group, a more equal mice
society arises. How does she then know whether the greater
number of bites in the experimental group is due to the hormones
in their food or to a different social evolution?
Because there are obvious variables besides the one she controls
(the hormones) and the one she wants to point to triumphally (the
number of bites), she must get more sophisticated than her sister,
unless she wants her critics to point out the reckless assumption
that went into a simpler model. (An alternative strategy is not
to mention the different nature of the two mice societies that
developed. Then when her critics suggest that there is a problem
with having the experimentals caged together and the controls
caged together, she can haughtily declare "grounds can always be
found to criticize any study.")
For the sake of the example, the zoologist is a good researcher
and she does a factor analysis. A factor analysis creates a
statistical model that attempts to determine the important
factors behind an observable at question. The zoologist creates
such a model and calculates, according to the model, that 90% of
biting frequency is determined by each mouse's weight and mating
frequency. Now that she has this, she can show that the biting
frequency in the experimentals is more than one would expect from
their weight and mating frequency, and that there is "only 8
chances out of 100,000 that it happened randomly." But unlike
her sister's 8 chances, the zoologist's is carrying the added
assumptions of her factor analysis. Social research often makes
use of linear models. (If you want to know what a linear model
is and precisely what kind of assumptions they carry, ask Kurt
Arbuckle.)
(In thinking about this, it occurs to me that the zoologist's
experiment, like many in real life, is not well designed. She
might be better off having the controls and experimentals in the
same cage. Hmmm ... such are the issues of experimental design.
But I must pack, so I will leave the example as is.)
The zoologist is much better off than her cousin, the economist,
who wants to study how the inflation rate affects people's saving
patterns. The economist faces several fundamental difficulties,
the first of which is that she cannot create a controlled
experiment. She must study what is there. She assiduously does
this and finds some (negative) correlation between inflation and
saving. But how does she know whether inflation caused people to
save less, or people saving less and spending more contributed to
inflation, or even whether the correlation is an epiphenomenon of
the system as a whole? Perhaps she gathers more data, and does a
factor analysis, and finds that 90% of the savings rate in each
year is explained by four other factors from the year previous.
In the lingo, these are good statistical predictors of the
savings rate. Can she now do what the bank who funded the study
wants from her: predict next year's savings rate? Enough to bet
on? Maybe. Maybe not. There are several problems facing her:
o She did her study using American data in the years
1974-1993. Social scientists frequently find that what are
good statistical predictors in one place and time are *not*
good statistical predictors in other places or at other
times. The times, they are a-changing.
o The economist faces many uncontrolled variables. There are
thousands of NEW factors each year that the economist's factor
analysis cannot account for. What are the odds that one or
more of these will throw a monkey wrench into her extrapolation
to the data point of concern? No one knows.
This last issue is critical. Unlike her biologist cousin (keep
track of the relationships here), the economist knows there are
graduate students feeding cheetos to the mice, along with
steroids, Hershey bars, and vitamins boosters. She knows that
there are new graduate students each year doing this, though she
doesn't know whom, when, how often, or what. While her factor
analysis *might* account for what went before, it is blind to the
new shenanigans this year. What is the probability that these
new factors are significant to her predictions? No one knows.
More, this is something that the economist's model cannot
(strong, theoretical CANNOT) test or analyze.
In any case, the economist wants to get paid, so she does the
calculations and tells her bosses that her model predicts a
savings rate next year between X and Y with only one chance in
ten that it will fall outside that range. Now: what does this
number mean? And on what assumptions is it based? And when
journalists report it in the newspaper, will there be any
explanation of these issues? (One might ask "how often does
something actually occur when an economist's model gives the
event one chance out of ten"? I would bet that a model of *this*
would give an answer significantly different from one out of
ten!)
Finally, we come to TM study. The TM study is much like the
economist's. According to a factor analysis and statistical
model, the test point -- the crime rate in DC in 1994 -- was
unusual, "with only 8 chances out of 100,000 that it happened
randomly." But the TM study is qualitatively weaker than the
economist's, especially in one important regard: For one of the
crucial variables -- the presence of the critical mass of TM
practitioners -- there is only one data point. How does this
make the TM study weaker? Consider an alternate hypothesis: in
years when Republicans take over Congress (excepting after a
major war), DC's crime rate is lower. (It doesn't matter that
the elections were not until November. It may be that the social
factors behind such election have effects before the election
itself. Such is the nature of statistical predictors!) The
condition in this hypothesis is coextensive with the presence of
the critical mass of TM practitioners in DC. Both share the same
data point. So: the study equally corroborates both hypotheses!
More: the study equally corroborates the hypothesis that
*anything* lowers the crime rate in DC providing it was absent
(or remained constant) over the years during which the factor
analysis was done, but was different for 1994!
Wow! What a strong study!
The bottom line here is that no amount of statistical
sophistication can bolster a study that (1) concerns a new kind
of (alleged) phenomena, (2) that faces a whole world of
uncontrolled, potentially relevant variables, (3) that tries to
prove itself from a small variation in a poorly understood
observable, and (4) that relies on only a few test points, of
necessity concerning most recent years rather than taken at
random. Such studies are quite weak, regardless of the
sophistication of the statistical model and regardless of the
probabilities it yields. In the modeling field, this is known as
making a model that exceeds the data.
As I have said earlier, I think it is quite plausible that the
introduction of a religious community into a city can have a
beneficial impact on the crime rate. I think this is especially
so when the religion enforces a mental discipline, as does TM.
But the study quoted shows more about the critical approach (or
lack thereof) exhibited by some religious believers, and perhaps
about the state of the art in various social "sciences," than it
does about this effect.
When someone knowledgable of statistical modeling reads about a
study, their mind naturally turns to these issues concerning the
kind of thing studied, the kind of data available, and the kinds
of assumptions that are inherent in the application of the
statistical model. These issues often cause a judgment about the
quality of the study that is somewhat independent of the
sophistication of the statistical analysis that is done or the
results of the statistical model itself. While sophisticated
models are often used (sometimes appropriately) because of the
complexities of the data, it is far better to have a simple model
that is well validated by the data available than to attempt to
use a sophisticated model to extract answers that the available
data cannot well support.
Russell
--
I'd rather that a bigot mistake me for a lesbian than that a lesbian
mistake me for a bigot.
-- Tovah Hollander
Russell Turpin
From a standard (but old) text by Alvin W. Drake, "Fundamentals
of Applied Probability Theory":
"Probability theory is axiomatic. Fully defined probability
problems have unique and precise solutions. ...
"The field of statistics is different. Statistics is concerned
with the relation of such models to actual physical systems. The
methods employed by the statistician are arbitrary ways of BEING
REASONABLE in the application of probability theory to physical
situations. His primary tools are probability theory, a
mathematical sophistication, and common sense."
Of course, all us cranks stick together. It comes from making
models for real application.