Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 3

Misrepresentation of research

Little of the research cited in this article correctly represents the content of the source articles. I will address those errors here, as a more transparent way of explaining the edits I intend to undertake.

• re: Wallace, R.K., et al: 1983, "Modification of the paired H-reflex through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program," Experimental Neurology 79. Performance on the monosynaptic stretch reflex test is not a measure of "neurological efficiency" ... whatever that means! Naturezak (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Naturezak. Some nice editing. I don't have the Wallace study at hand. Are you saying that he doesn't use the phrase "neurological efficiency"? I think I added much of this content related to the research. I think I was looking at the articles when I did so. But it's also possible, though, that in some cases I was looking at a summary of the research and that this summary was itself published in a peer-reviewed publication. I can't say for sure, since it was quite some time ago. But if I've used terminology not in the study itself, yes please do correct it. But be assured that everything there did come from a published study, whether the study itself or a published summary. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding research: I have raised this within the TM article but feel that it also needs to be raised here - but to an even greater extent.. I see that a lot of the research here to support the physiological, neurological, cognitive and indeed psychological effects of the program has actually been conducted by those associated with the TM university - MUM. Of especially prominence here is Orme Johnson. Indeed, many of the effects are supported by research only published in MUMs non peer reviewed magazine. Obvious all of the latter need to be removed unless other supporting research can be found. Now, regarding research done by those with a vested interest in TM - ie Orm Johnson, etc, who at the time were working for the organization we have different problems. The only two options here will either to remove them completely as value laden research or alternative - and more realistically - point out to the reader they have been conducted by those with a vested interest in their success. thoughts? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it must not be from science indexes. I don't believe it's accurate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TG. As I have access to one of the largest university libraries in the world - and also one of the most complete Athens access - I'm afraid it is correct. however, it actually doesn't require that much research - simply look at the references in this article. Except for a few of the early studies in the 70's, much of the peer reviewed research has been conducted by TM practitioners and MUM staff members - indeed a rather worrying finding and not one I was expecting. I have begun to list these is in the general TM article, but you have read this already - although in its defense it at least doesn't quote articles from MUMs own locally printed non peer reviewed magazine. however, i am sure that this is simply an oversight and can be quickly remedied.

but how do we deal with all this research we now find has been conducted by TM practioneers and especially those who were or shortly after held senior posts at MUM? Any suggestions? Really2012back (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples references 1, 2, 3 in this article:

1. ^ TRAVIS, F. T., and ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. "EEG coherence and power during yogic flying. International Journal of Neuroscience," 54: 1-12, 1990.
2. ^ Orme-Johnson, D. W., et al: 1989,"Longitudinal effects of the TM-Sidhi program on EEG phase coherence," in Chalmers, R.A., et al, eds., Scientific Research on Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Pogram: Collected Papers, vol. 3 (Maharishi Vedic University Press, Vlodrop, Netherlands), pp. 1678-1686
3. ^ Wallace, R.K., et al: 1983, "Modification of the paired H-reflex through the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program," Experimental Neurology 79, pp. 77-86

All of this people have been closely connected to - or indeed worked at MUM. Orm Johnson is a name we shall she repeated. You will notice the article presently use his article in the MUM magazine to support an issue on physiology - although I believe he is not a physiologist but from the social sciences. but this last fact is unimportant.

ref 5 ^ Orme-Johnson, David W., and Christopher Haynes: 1981, "EEG Phase Coherence, Pure Consciousness, Creativity, and TM-Sidhi Experiences," International Journal of Neuroscience, vol 13, 1981, pp. 211-217

ref 8 # ^ Hagelin, J. S., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Rainforth, M., Cavanaugh, K., & Alexander, C. N. (1999). Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness in Washington, D.C. Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201

1. ^ Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July 1993, John S. Hagelin, et al

ref13 ^ Hagelin, J. S., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Rainforth, M., Cavanaugh, K., & Alexander, C. N. (1999). Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness in Washington, D.C. Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201

ref # ^ 16_Hagelin, J. S., Orme-Johnson, D. W., Rainforth, M., Cavanaugh, K., & Alexander, C. N. (1999). Results of the National Demonstration Project to Reduce Violent Crime and Improve Governmental Effectiveness in Washington, D.C. Social Indicators Research, 47, 153–201.

ref 17 # ^ TRAVIS, F. T., and ORME-JOHNSON, D. W. "EEG coherence and power during yogic flying. International Journal of Neuroscience," 54: 1-12, 1990.

Indeed apart from one reference - the credientials of the author I have yet to track down (doesn;t seem to publish must - the only other refernces in this article that are not from papers/research authored by Orm Johnson - appear to be critisms.

But please Timid - in the nature of goodfaith of course - please check for yourself. I shall begin looking at the TM refernces shortly. Really2012back (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't understood the basis of this statement: "Indeed, many of the effects are supported by research only published in MUMs non peer reviewed magazine." And I was concerned that you seem to be conflating research on Transcendental Meditation with research on the TM-Sidhi program. It's true that many of the studies on the TM-Sidhi program have been done by researchers affiliated with Maharishi University of Management (formerly Maharishi International University). But there's no Wikipedia policy that disallows this peer-reviewed research. And there's no reason that any policy would. Research that is properly done and published in a peer-reviewed journal is respected, regardless of who does it. If you want to say something like, "a study done by Maharishi University of Management scientists found that . . . " I'd probably go along with it. Though I can't guarantee that other editors will. If you beat the reader over the head, as Rracecarr has done, I'll probably oppose.

Regarding vested interest, I would just note, for example, that David Orme-Johnson's pay at the university was $300 per month. (Fortunately, we've had a pay raise and I'm now, as an associate professor, earning $400 per month. Like many faculty I have a part-time, unrelated job in order to remain on faculty). David spent his long career as a researcher in impoverishment. He inherited some money from his parents and that allowed him to retire. I have no prospect of retirement. We have no pension here. David's motivation was simply that of a scientist -- he was immensely curious about the effects of Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi program. He's the nicest man you'll ever meet. I cringe when I hear "vested interest." The truth is, poverty motivated by a sincere curiosity. TimidGuy (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. It is you who has been relentlessly "beating readers over the head" with your distorted POV ever since you started editing. I think you should be banned from editing all TM-related articles. You are affiliated with MUM and the TM movement, and so are a COI editor. You continually (though gently) work to suppress neutral information about TM and push propaganda. As an aside this article is in a horrible state--completely POV from start to finish. Rracecarr (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

$400 per month dear timid? As an associate professor? goodness i have graduate students earning more then that doing "bar work" I believe they call it. Goodness, no wonder the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is the leader of such a large multi million dollar company, with hotels, etc, etc. Although, oddly I have seen that cited on the critique sites from former Tamers also. Goodness some of them said that they worked for nothing because they felt that they were "brainwashed". No such thing here I am sure. perhaps now that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has retired there will be a "change in management" as it were and you can ask for a rise. My thoughts - genuinely - go with go with you my friend and I see you in a far different light. Peace. Really2012back (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Timid: Sorry i didn't realize the beat the reader over the head comment was directed at me. Seems a little "heated" a comment. Not in the form of assuming goood intentions - I think you pointed out to me. Never my friend, like you I am sure, I am a pacifist and would never consider violence. Goodness this is really getting somewhat heated. I really must go and mediate for a moment.I shall return shortly. Peace. Really2012back (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, back for a minute and feel a little better now. TG, I have re-read your comments please don;t assume that I am saying that Orm Johnson, yourself or Olive are being deliberately u or indeed that you are not "nice" good" people - You assume to much. I have Meet Orme Johnson at a conference, I have also Meet David Lynch - someone who I find very agreeable and of a VERY "good heart". But this does not mean that either are right about everything they believe - especially so passionately. That Orm Johnson worked for only 350 dollars a months most show his "dedication to the cause" and makes the use of his - nodoubt very good research - open to comment. Equally, your own comments as an editor, working for 400 dollars a month when you should be on a MUCH higher salary and working for the organization who's article you are editing - has to through great doubt on your own objective ability to edit this article. This is more so, when you personally know - even down to how much they earned and their personal financiers - of one of the researchers who's included work we are attempting to critically evaluate. I'm afraid it leaves little room - unless we can work this out objectively - but to take it to to dispute about you continuing to work on this article as an active editor. Now back to my meditation. Peace. 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk)

Still, if they are peer-reviewed and published in respected magazines, how can we say it is not valid because the people believe in what they are doing? that would amount for almost any research that has been peer-reviewed where the author was passionate about its work. Doctors should not get an article on how efficient a new brain scanning technique is, if they developed the technique but got several doctors from other institutions to read and approve the article, just because they invented the thing and therefore had an interest? rather confused here. I do agree, that no matter how good a job timid does, being associated with the institution would not make for a transparent editor, dedication can be an obstacle to accept criticism (not that I have any evidence of that)even if he is, the conflict is potentially there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabulos (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

51 studies

The paragraph "According to researcher David Orme-Johnson, there have been 51 studies on the Maharishi Effect published in journals including Social Indicators Research, Journal of Mind and Behavior, Social Science Perspectives Journal, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Crime and Justice, and Psychology, Crime and Law. [4]"

Needs to be removed - citing that someone says that there have been 51 studies published does not prove that they have been - this is simply hearsay. Equally, it is pointless mentioning them unless we know what there outcomes were. 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk)

As an option, we could consider listing them. There used to be a second source for this, which I think did list them. But Naturezak deleted it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Timid I think listing them would be best - |We will leave it as it is for a while to give you time to track them down Really2012back (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

AS its now been some time and the references have still not been produced i shall delete this references as discussed. Really2012back (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I did not, and do not agree in any way, that this should be deleted I have re added the deleted material . Orme -Johnson is an expert in this field and therefore his site can be considered appropriate as a reference by Wikipedia standards. If the studies he mentions were listed that might be a better solution but is not the only solution. For now this material should stay in place. Should the studies be listed in some other reliable way I would be happy to remove this paragraph. (olive (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi, Olive and Really. I guess I should have discussed first, but I went ahead and changed it yet again. sorry about that. Feel free to revert. As I noted above, the article had originally included a link to a bibliography of all the studies, but that was deleted by Naturezak, leaving only the David OJ source. It's true that many of the 51 studies weren't published, but a significant number have been. I don't know if anyone would have inferred that they were from the original wording, but I've revised it to make it clear. I really do need to work on other things. I'm getting so far behind. But a goal should be to give a bibliographic citation for each of the journals mentioned in that list. TimidGuy (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TG I simply cannot accept this. At the moment - we have the word of an interested authority - on whos website he makes it clear that this is his personal opinon - that 50 studies have been conducted. Apart form that fact that these have not been listed what is the point of mentioning this at the moment?Really2012back (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) We do not know at the moment what the studies say, what they investigated, etc. This would be like saying in an article on quantum theory - 100, 000 million studies have been conducted. What exactly would be the point? Who did them. What did they say, What did they investigate. At themoment this is simply an erronous statement. Untill you can provide this information please do not re-instate this usless statment my friend. Thank you. Really2012back (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi, Rracecarr. You said to cite it, so I went to the trouble of finding a citation. I assumed that if I cited it, then you'd find it acceptable. But you still delete it. You're not playing nice. : ) What's going on? TimidGuy (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it's not really about citing, and I was lazy in implying that it was. Sorry about that. But it really is POV. Rracecarr (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you were just trying to dupe me into violating 3RR. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rracecar you are at 3RR.

Olive that's BS.Rracecarr (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rracecar. I count that you have removed peer-review four times. If the first time is not considered a revert then you are still at three. I wanted to be sure you were warned since the last time I was in a discussion with you, and you reverted I neglected to warn you because I hadn't see the reverts until too late. Could you enlighten me here.(olive (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

A revert is a revert. I was at 2RR when you said I was at 3. I don't particularly want to edit war, but it's painfully obvious that "peer reviewed" is in there to try to legitimize the study. It would be like saying the study was featured in an award winning film, WTB. It's true, but the only reason to put it that way is to promote a POV. Rracecarr (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted. This can include undoing edits to a page." You had made at that point 3 reverts if you count the first change, but I need to check that to see if its counted. Rracecar I was operating in good faith as I said. Its something for me to check out to make sure I understand this. I am fine with leaving out peer review , but I wasn't feeling good about TG complying with request and you backing down. Fair enough.(olive (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

This is perfectly acceptable given the long discussion we've had with Really for example about research. If its Peer Reviewed its ok to say so in this context. Its been cited as well.Please discuss here.(olive (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

You see what happens? Like calling The Candymans 3 times in the mirror - I appear.

Although he hasn't said so, is it just the comment about ..."the peer Reviewed...." that he removed. If that is the case I would have to agree with him. If we do it here why not every time a study published in a peer review journal? It's simply redundant.

Actually, that reminds me - following our discussion of Wiki policy - we will need to mention that the researchers involved in this study all had close association with MUM/TM, etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_publications_and_check_community_consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Business_and_Commerce

Also, think we will need to quote Park, Robert L rebuttal to OJ, etcs criticism of his comments regarding their study - of which he said:

" Rainforth charges that I confused homicides with violent crimes in general. He elaborates on this on the Web page of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy (www.istpp.org/ voodoo-rebuttal.htm): "It is true the murder rate did not drop during the course--as we acknowledged in the initial research report and the published study--but the facts were very different. For six weeks ending the month before the experiment, from mid-March through April. homicides averaged ten per week. Beginning one week after the course and for twelve weeks thereafter, homicides also averaged ten per week. During the eight weeks of the experiment, in June and July the average was again ten per week--except for one horrific 36-hour period in which ten people died. Apart from chit brief episode, which was a statistical outlier, the level of homicides during June and July of 1993 was not significantly higher than the rest of the year." Well, there you have it. Results that don't support the prediction are simply declared to be a statistical glitch." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_25/ai_79794387/pg_14 See, now if you stop calling my name in that mirror I will sod off :-) Hope you are "both" well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Oops! Actually we will also need to mention the association of the place of publication also: Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy with MUM, TM the natural law party and of course the institutes president John Hagelin - the eminent physicist who once said that it was easy to see how Yogic Flying could fully take place once you understood that Newtons Laws Of Gravity were 200 years "out of date" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwhGUo90jw Perhaps MUM's scientific facility staff can get together with the fundamentalists and deny evolution? Just a thought. Sowing some seeds. Inter spiritual co-operation and all that. Really2012back (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. Really. You can read Rainforth's complete critique here.[1] Regarding the number of murders, seems to me Park doesn't really address the main point -- that murder rate is a very small sample size (3% of the total), given to large random fluctuations, and that overall violent crime rate decreased. Rainforth suggests that Park's focus on murder rate is a red herring. And Park throws out the same red herring in his response. Note that the Reliable Sources:Samples page you cite is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

DR TG, as you know, I'm not hanging around this page - just couldn't resist the Candyman thing and indeed the gravity thing - sorry. But before I go, I have to say one of your arguments here is very poor, I.E. "Note that the Reliable Sources:Samples page you cite is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline or policy." If that is so, then you would also need to remove OJs comment about TM not being a cult - not only is that not even essay, but - as OJ says himself on his site - only his personal opinion. Equally the comment:" Study coauthor Maxwell Rainforth writes that Park gives "no supporting data or analysis for that assertion, and makes not another comment about it," either in his book or in the shorter version that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer. Further, Rainforth writes that "Park’s objection to our use of time series analysis is not based on any scientific argument . . . ." The researchers also question whether Park read the published study, since his criticism focuses on a preliminary Interim Report released at a press conference in 1994. [11]" is again on a website - not published - and to make things worse a cite owned by a company trademarked by Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. But thats it - less me name is uttered 3 times again in a mirror by either you or Dr Olive - I'm out of here. Peace - honest :-)Really2012back (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How Do These Studies Prove That TM is Achieving its Goals?

The stated aim of the Sidhi programme is, according to this article, to enhance the effects of meditation. The effects of TM are, according to the TM article, the attainment of enlightenment. So, how do all these studies of serotonin levels and EEG coherence indicate that TM could induce enlightenment in a practitioner?

A further effect, discussed in the section on Religion and Spirituality, is the attainment of deep relaxation and connection with a purported "field of unlimited potential", the nature of which is not discussed in this article. "Potential" is a quality of something; for instance the potential of a surge of electricity to kill an adult human is not the electricity itself, but rather an effect of the strength of the surge, the direction in which the surge is travelling, and other such factors. So, the question naturally arises: what is the nature of this field? How is the enlightenment of "the square root of 1% of the population" supposed to effect changes in this field? How does "deep relaxation" effect a connection with this field? What is the nature of this connection? Why, specifically, do we need TM as a means of achieving this deep relaxation? Is it a different kind of relaxation than that achieved through different methods? If so, how exactly is this kind of relaxation able to achieve the connection with the "field of unlimited potential" mentioned in the article?

If you want to drag science into this discussion, you need to refute the arguments of physicists such as Victor Stenger. Every time the New Age woo woo queens come up with new twists on their notion that quantum physics somehow proves cosmic consciousness, Stenger shoots them down. What does Hagelin have to say about this? Why is a physicist such as Hagelin conducting sociological studies such as the one in Washington in 1999? Is he qualified for such research?

I really think you need to pull these two articles and rethink them. And come back when you are able to do something other than regurgitate pro-TM propaganda. ermadogErmadog (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be cautious with the tone of your comments. "Woo woo queers" may violate tie Wikipedia guidelines of no personal attacks and civility. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you misread my comments or did you mistype in your response? The term I used was "woo woo queens", not queers. "Woo" is a term coined (I believe) by James Randi, a respected authority in his chosen field. As a professional debunker of con artists, Randi has developed the habit of applying the term "woo" to the partyicular con artistry of New Age proponents, in order to distinguish it from more traditional forms of con as developed in the West. A "woo woo queen" would, of course, refer any individual particularly skilled in New Age con artistry. This is a generic term not disparaging any particular individual. It is applied to demonstrable con artistry. If you think that calling a spade a spade violates the wiki code of civility, please demonstrate your case.

In the mean time, try clearing up some of the woo in your articles by answering the questions I have posed. This would go a long way towards demonstrating good faith on your part. ermadogErmadog (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, misread it. And personally I don't think it's necessary to emulate Randi's language here on the Talk page because it created a hostile atmosphere. If Victor Stengeer has published a critique of research on the Maharishi Effect in a peer-reviewed journal, that definitely meets Wikipedia's guidelines and can be referenced in this article.

Yes, there are indeed some studies show that Transcendental Meditation has unique effects. In other cases, some of the effects are generalized among all types of relaxation and meditation. Out of time for now. TimidGuy (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed these "studies" in the discussion page on TM. I refer you there.

I did not claim that Stenger discussed the Maharishi Effect as such. He has, however, published extensively on the underlying claims about such things as "quantum consciousness" which are typically used in attempts to revive the discredited theories of vitalism and monism which underpin so much of ancient Eastern philosophy. Physicist Heinz Pagel has stated that he does not see how anyone can make such claims (about unified fields of consciousness being proven by modern physics) without engaging in outright fraud. You can see a general discussion of this in Wikipedia's own article on quantum mysticism.

I took a look at Hagelin's "explanations" of the Maharishi Effect on the Permanent Peace web site http://permanentpeace.org/theory/peace.html . His claim that there exists a unified field theory encorporating all the laws of nature is disputed in Wikipedia's own article on unified field theory in physics. There, three of the four fundamental forces of the universe have been incorporated into a unified field theory, but that no one has yet succeeded in incorporating gravity into that theory. This alone tells us that the theory is merely a tentative hypothesis, and not even a working model. It is by no means an established theory. And there is no talk at all about incorporating all the laws of nature into this model.

<redacted WP:BLP violations> Hagelin's claim that science has revealed a nonmaterial field as the basis of the natural world is <untrue>. Einstein showed that E(energy) = M(matter) x C (the universal constant, which he identified as the speed of light). In layman's terms, this statement equates matter with energy. Matter is energy in a different form; and energy is matter in a different form. Everything is both matter and energy. There is nothing here to suggest that the universe is based on nonmateriality.

His talk about string theories is also spurious. He seems to imply that string theory is an established facet of modern physics. Even a cursory internet search shows that this theory is in dispute by reputable scientists, such as Peter Woit (Not Even Wrong, The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law, 2006, available at a number of booksellers online). Stenger's discussions of string theory are too numerous for me to list here.

I am not qualified to discuss the physics involved. But I do recognize leaps in logic when I see them, and this web site is full of them. This phrase "The discovery of one unified field of all the laws of nature" is entirely meaningless. It may be possible one day to erect a theory which encompasses all the known laws of nature. But Hagelin surely knows that a theory is not a field. There will never be a field of laws. Ever. Unless the English useage of these terms evolves drastically over time, such that their future meaning bears no resemblance to their present meaning.

His claim that this unified field is a field of intelligence shows that he does not have the faintest clue of how to disuss these terms scientifically. Intelligence is a property of consciousness. When a sentient being processes information, it displays intelligence. For consciousness to exist, there must first exist things that a sentient being may become conscious of. Consciousness and intelligence are therefore products of the material world.

Where is the informational processing capacity of this "field of intelligence" displayed? Where are the transportation routes over which the information is carried for processing? Where is the central processing unit?

To suggest that we need TM to get in touch with some alleged unified field, as described by Hagelin, is simply absurd. If this field is the basis of everything, then we are already in touch with it, because we are part of it. To suggest that this "field" is a field of peace contradicts the suggestion that the field is a field of intelligence. Intelligence is an active principle; peace is a cessation of activity. His suggestion contradicts every discovery in every tradition of dialectic philosophy from the Taoists, buddhists, Greeks like Heraclitus to Hegel's rational dialectics. The basic principle of dialectics is, as Diderot put it, "everything is in a constant state of flux"; and this point is born out by every discovery of modern physics and biology. It is axiomatic that things which are in a state of flux are constantly changing, and therefore destroying the old in the process of creating the new. This principle is most obvious to the layman in his observance of the cycles of agriculture and the passage of the seasons.

If Hagelin is <incorrect> in his field of expertise, we can place no confidence in his pronouncements on matters for which he has no qualifications, such as the sociological research on "peace creating" groups. I would suggest you remove all of the material that relies on him as an authority. ermadog207.34.100.40 (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether Hagelin is <incorrect> or not is not the issue here since we are not trying to prove anything . The research on the ME is stated and is shown to have suppoters and detractors in encyclopedic style. We cannot take opinion and attempt to make points about opinion in the article, or once again we step into the range of research . As an aside, Wikipedia has a clear, strong policy on civility even on talk pages so calling Hagelin a liar although an opinion, and we all have them, may be less than a civil way to describe your concerns with his reputation and research.(olive (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

His claim that science has revealed nonmateriality to be the basis of everything is a flat out lie, as I have demonstrated. This can be verified by any high school physics student. No advanced degree in physics is needed to see this. Therefore, his integrity is in question; and all of his citations, based on his authority, need to be removed from the article.

It would be fun to discuss these things about physics and Hagelin, and consciousness and intelligence, etc., but it's not really the purpose of the Talk page to discuss web sites on the Internet, nor do I have time. I would note, though, that the dismissal of string theory by a particular book doesn't mean that it's somehow discredited. There are many competing grand unified theories, as you know, and no one yet knows which model will eventually be the best. This is part of scientific process. This also explains why I don't feel a few studies of TM showing varying results constitutes a controversy. It's just the normal process of science -- exploring hypotheses and eventually adding something to the corpus of knowledge. TimidGuy (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I do appreciate, Ermadog, the intelligence and thought that went into these comments, and your eloquent articulation of them. TimidGuy (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My discussion of Hagelin calls his integrity into question. He treats unified field and string theory, which he presents as the basis of the ME effect, as having been scientifically established when they are, in fact, still in their infancy. This is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

I do not see how it would be fun to discuss anything with someone who consistently misreads my comments. I will make one last attempt to clarify matters and then I am done with you. Nowhere did I claim that string theory has been discredited, nor would I make such a claim as I have admitted that I do not have the compettence in that field. Unlike you and Hagelin, I do not make authoritative claims outside my areas of expertise. What are your science credentials, again? And Hagelin's credentials in sociological research?

<> At the very least, you need to include a description of Hagelin's "theory" of how ME allegedly works, and note that it is based on scientific theories that are very much in dispute. If you don't have time to perform these edits, I do. ermadogErmadog (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ermadog you are stating opinions, and your tone and manner violate Wikipedia policy on civility. Note also that Hagelin's research in this article is balanced by material that questions his research. This is appropriate by Wikipedia standards, and creates neutrality in the section. I refer you to WP:What Wikipedia is not. You seem to be intenet on calling Hagelin a liar among other things . While I'm sure John Hagelin does not need me to defend him, you should note that this page is for discussion of the article, and what is and could be in the article. Your personal opinion once stated is fine, but also enough. Since placing this opinion in the article would be OR , it cannot be included, and is past being appropriate discussion for this page.(olive (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Your suggestion that my statement of Haglein being a liar is only opinion is merely your opinion. I have demonstrated the verity of my statement, and its implications for what should or should not be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal For Revisions in Washington Section and One Yet to be Determined

The section on the Washington study highlights one of many such studies, giving it undue emphasis. It gives undue weight to the pro-ME side. It also seems to indicate that Raswell is a coauthor of Park's study, not Hagelin's, again, giving his remarks undue weight. Given the demonstrated bias of this article's authors, the fact that Hagelin is not an disinterested party in this affair, and the fact that MUM has a known history of fraud in these matters (the Randi incident mentioned in the article and the JAMA incident mentioned by me in previous remarks) this section needs to be revised. We have no way of knowing how accurately this dispute has been represented.

A brief overview should suffice, as the facts acknowledged by the pro-ME researchers are sufficient to throw their claims in doubt. The fact that the murder rate remained the same and even spiked shows that peace creation, if it was the active agent in this matter, was not completely successfull. The fact that murder is only 3% of the total crime rate must be balanced by acknowlegding that it carries more weight, because it is the most serious crime. It must further be balanced by referrence to the fact that violent crime in general has been falling for the past several decades (I actually don't know if that is true in the U.S. This is research you should have done before producing this article).

You should also mention the fact that war broke out in Lebanon during the peace creating effort in 1983. The brief period of peace that preceeded the attack on the American barracks may have beeen the result of the American occupation during that period.

It should further be noted that a large amount of violent crime goes unreported -- particularly domestic violence and rape -- and there is no way of factoring these elements into the studies.

Of particular concern is Hagelin's touting of the fact that Clinton's approval rate went up during the Washington study. This is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state, a principle which is fast eroding in the U.S. today. Furthermore, such manipulation of political events by a small group of elites is blatantly anti-democratic.

Somewhere in this article, you must include a brief description of the theoretical underpinnings of the ME as described by the MUM. Since these claims are in no significant way different from Hagelin's claims, my criticism of his claims apply here also. You must therefore, at the very least, include a link to the wiki article showing that the state of unifed string theory and the unified field theory are very much in flux -- these theories are not settled as the MUM and Hagelin imply. The MUM talks about a complete unified theory, which does not, at this point in time, exist. As stated on the wiki page, the currently debated unified field theory has not succeeded in integrating gravity into it. The identification of a putative "field of consciousness" with the equally putative "unified field" is entirely arbitrary and is not shown to have any basis in scientific reality. The 1% figure seems to have been pulled out of the Maharishi's thumb, as that also seems to have no basis in scientific reality. I have not seen a statement here that I would call an outright lie, but the mirespresentation is endemic. I'm thinking this should go in the introduction to what TM-Sidhi is supposed to achieve; but, it could go in a separate section on controversy. This section must include mention of the fact, acknowledged by TG, that much of the research in favour of ME has been produced by the TM movement, and that MUM associates have a history of fraud. ermadogErmadog (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Randi didn't show research fraud. JAMA suggested that there was a problem with marketing but didn't show scientific fraud. (And JAMA was sued for $194 million for libel.) The murder rate doesn't show that the study wasn't completely successful. If you want to include something about this (or some of the other proposed insertions), you'd need to find sources which say the things you're suggesting, such as the murder rate carrying more weight. And any sources you find should specifically be in the context of discussion of research on the Maharishi Effect, or else it's considered to be a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding original research.

I'd be open to including a description of the theoretical underpinnings, but we'd want to take it from the published studies. The Transcendental Meditation-related web sites tend to use the phrase "unified field" more as a synonym for concepts introduced by Maharishi, specifically in the phrase "unified field of all laws of nature." That usage differs from its use in scientific contexts, and often the phrase is capitalized to show the distinction. John I'm sure is clear on the distinction, but it's quite possible that some people and some web pages conflate this usage.

If it's unclear that Rainforth is a coauthor of the Hagelin study, that needs to be fixed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Randi material in the article seems sufficient to allow the reader to assess for himself whether fraud is involved, I have no objections to leaving it as is. What this incident shows is that the only person who is known to have fact checked a TM sponsored ME study discovered the study to be factually baseless. This throws the entire corpus of ME sponsored TM studies into doubt. Lambert's account of the JAMA problem appears in the Fall 1991 issue of ScienceWriters:

The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm . I could not find original copies of his subsequent article online. He uses terms such as "hoodwinked", "duped", and "balderdash" to describe a situation in which a piece of marketing propaganda was passed off as research. The exact terminology is irrelevant. We both agree that what is at issue is some kind of generic deception. If you're going to bring the lawsuit into this discussion, you will have to provide a link to the original court documents. You will also have to tell us how that suit ended. According to the wiki page on this matter, the suit was dropped by the plaintiffs. In any event, lawsuits do not always determine truth in a matter. They determine whether a plaintiff has been able to provide sufficient evidence of guilt, and whether the defendant was able to effectively rebut the argument. As an example, many white people are convinced that O.J. Simpson got off on a technicality; while many black people are convinced he was vindicated.

As for the Washington study, if you are going to claim that any endeavour which fails in any area at all cannot be characterised as "not completely successfull", you have serious, serious logic impairments that require you to recuse yourself from editing in wiki or any place else. I think that most people would view murder as more serious than other types of violent crime. I would think that that is a matter of public knowledge, and as such does not require citation, as per wiki guidelines. However, the sentencing of criminals reflects the fact that the law system considers murder to be most egregious, and that is a matter of public knowledge. Of, course, people who believe in an after life may think that murder is of little import in the overall scheme of things. Hagelin's willingness to downplay this aspect of the study would appear to reflect bias.

The matter at issue in the Washington study is one of relative weight. According to various sources previously mentioned, the TMers tout a whole corpus of literature reflecting studies favourable to ME. Yet, instead of providing an overview of this literature, the article has highlighted the Washington study. This suggests that the Washington study is representative of the whole range of studies; whereas, in truth, it may have been cherrypicked because it presents ME in the most favourable light. In any case, this study must be examined in more detail if you wish to leave it as the sole study examined. As presented in the article, Hagelin is relying entirely on the time series analysis as his method of accounting for other factors affecting the crime rate. The validity of this time series analysis must be established in the article. You need citations. You need to show that it is in fact established science. For instance, the police routinely use lie detectors in their work; yet, many courts of law refuse to accept this evidence because lie detectors are not established science. Likewise, IQ tests are routinesly used by educators, even though they have no established scientific validity. You also need to show whether this time series analysis does indeed do what Hagelin says it does. You also need to establish whether Hagelin has any established credentials in sociological research of this type. You have a lot of work to do on this study if you wish to use it as an example representive of existing ME studies. Otherwise, you must scrap it and content yourself with a general overview of the current state of studies. ermadogErmadog (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ermadog you are once again talking about synthesis of material,WP:SYN. This is not a research paper . The Washington study is simply reperesentational. Please note the section is heavily ladened with criticism of the study. All entries are referenced . If there is undue weight WP:UNDUE it may be that the section is too heavily weigthed towards the negative crticisms of the study and of Hagelin(olive (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

I am not talking about synthesis of material; and I have never talked about synthesis of material except to suggest that the material on the TM page gave the subtle appearance of an attempt at synthesis, which you have corrected to a certain extent. I am talking about "faithfully summarizing", as discussed by Tanaats, above "Value of TM-Sidhi© Program." I read all that before making my first comment here; and I am well aware of timidguy's confusion on the questions of bias and how to select representive science citations. You have failed to address my point about the cherrypicking of evidence. Until there is a rebuttal of Rainforth's rebuttal, it remains heavily weighted in Hagelin's favour. My critcisms of the study stand. It should also be noted that this study was coauthored by the local police department, who are certainly not scientists -- as per timidguy under the conflict of interest section. If this study is in fact representive of the quality of research the TMers rely on, you really don't have any good evidence at all. If you can't discuss its contents objectively, you can only mention the study in passing and provide a link to a referrence; and mention Park and provide a link to him. That's it. ermadogErmadog (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you would suggest cherrypicking, since neither Olive nor I originally wrote this section. I suspect it was originally written by an opponent, because when I began editing Wikipedia this discussion of the DC study only mentioned Park's various criticisms of the study. I added the material from Rainforth, per Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Fine to add other studies, though it would be very time consuming. I can see two challenges: there are no published critiques of most of the studies, so adding them might give undue weight to the Maharishi Effect. The exception is the Lebanon study. And the challenge with that particular study is that there is a large back-and-forth literature that would take hours and hours to research and assimilate, and then be very difficult to summarize, I am not at all familiar with this, other than to know that it exists and to have skimmed yet another long and very detailed rebuttal by David Orme-Johnson and Robert Oates that I don't think has been published yet.

I'm not sure what to do about the Randi material that's in this article. The problem is that the ME research he mentions doesn't exist. It's a classic straw man argument. It's unfortunate that it gives the impression that Randi "fact checked a TM-sponsored ME study discovered to be factually baseless." Regarding your suggested additions such as establishing the validity of time series analysis, these seem odd and not necessary under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In fact, it seems to be odd that anyone would question the use of time series analysis. Isn't it a standard statistical method? And is there any evidence that it's not what's commonly used to establish a baseline?

I don't have time right now to check the link that you gave, but I believe it wasn't written by Lambert but by Skolnick (a defendent in the $194 million libel suit). And I don't think the original article in JAMA was "passed off as research." It was a letter, if I remember correctly.TimidGuy (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, TimidGuy, your response has helped me put the Washington study into perspective. That is a good start. From what you say about Park, which I have not checked, his remarks do not constitute a well rounded critique. So, by the criteria outlined by you just now, that would exclude the Washington study. If you are going to include it, and if you are going to say that it is representive of the quality of research published in peer review, you are the one who must establish the validity of the time series analysis. I have no idea, and in the article, all we have is Hagelin's assertion that it is standard. And we have no idea of his qualifications for sociological research; so, we have no idea how to assess his assertion - especially in light of his acknowledged pro ME bias.

The Randi material may require clarification, I will review it when I am more clear-headed. I have not looked at his original assertions in this matter. If Rabinoff's claims were not based on research, that needs to be made clear. There is then a lesser egregence involved, but still throws suspicion of a sort on all the pro ME pronouncements -- moreso if he was speaking as a spokesperson for ME.

I apologize about the Lambert/Skolnick mixup -- a result of typing when tired. If you'll accept my apology, we can resume attempts at civil discourse. ermadog207.34.100.40 (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the Article

Hi are there any editors currently working on this article? If so I would like to help improve it.--Uncreated (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)