Talk:TM-Sidhi program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Created new article by moving content from article on Transcendental Meditation 2 Tags added at top of article 3 Proposed Merger 4 3 in 1? 5 Reference for "Maharishi’s Supreme Military Science"? 6 New and nav templates 7 Countering quote 8 "This is considered a mainstream interpretation of some kinds of EEG coherence" needs a citation 9 Misplaced reference? 10 He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page? 11 Value of TM-Sidhi© Program 12 Change of levitation to Yogic Flying 13 Square root of 1% 14 conflict of interest 15 Does this make sense? 16 Misrepresentation of research 17 51 studies 18 Peer Review 19 How Do These Studies Prove That TM is Achieving its Goals? 20 Proposal For Revisions in Washington Section and One Yet to be Determined

[edit] Created new article by moving content from article on Transcendental Meditation

The TM-Sidhi program is a distinct technique from Transcendental Meditation, and this very long section didn't really belong in the article on Transcendental Meditation. Plus, that article exceeded the guideline on WP:Article size. So I've created this new article.

[edit] Tags added at top of article

Thanks to editor John Reaves for adding tags at the top of this ariticle indicating that it needs to be improved. Indeed, I and another editor are working on reorganizing the article and adding context.

I don't understand two of thw tags. One says tnat it reads like a review and needs to be more neutral in tone. The article is neutral in the sense that it contains differing points of view. It would be great to have feedback on how it could be made more neutral.

Second, a tag says that it needs a complete rewrite for reasons listed on the Talk page, but no reasons have been given here. Would be helpful to have those. Thanks!TimidGuy 15:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose to remove tags three and four -- about the article sounding like a review and about it needing a complete rewrite. I've done some work on the article and hope that it's a bit beter. It still needs work (whether or not it stays as an independent article or is merged with TM article). But it seems like there's a surfeit of tags and that the top two are the most relevant. TimidGuy 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merger

User timidguy split this article off the Transcendental Meditation article after proposing the move and waiting less then three days, with no response and then moved it.

I believe there are other parts of the article which have less significance to the article then the TM-Siddhi program that could be trimmed down or moved before this part.

Part of his stated reason for moving the article is his belief that the TM article is JUST about the Transcendental Meditation technique. [[1]] As the article stands right now, this is not how the article is structured. Sethie 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I waited three days and no one had objected. As no one objected to my earlier relocation of the Global Country of World Peace material. And generally I've gotten good feedback on my work on the TM article. So I went ahead.

A major part of the rationale is Article size. The article on Transcendental Meditation greatly exceeded the guideline on article size. Plus, I want to add more information to the Transcendental Meditation article. And Purple Iris and I are planning to add more content to this article on the TM-Sidhi program. If the two are merged, then it will create a humongous article.TimidGuy 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear that is what you are saying right here and right now. And when I read what you wrote on the TM talk page, I hear a different emphasis, maybe I am misreading what you wrote, you'll have to tell me. When I read what you wrote there, my impression is, "Hmmm he's concerned with article lenght and REALLY concerned about people understanding that TM-siddhi is different from TM technique and that the article is not about the TM movement." That's my reaction to your explination there.... would you be willing to re-read what you wrote and tell me if I have misinterpretted what you wrote?Sethie 23:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sethie. I think that for the most part we agree on what I'm trying to say: The article exceeds the guideline on Article size, and a good way to divide it is to make a separate article out of the TM-Sidhi program material, because it's a different technique from Transcendental Meditation. But I didn't say that the Transcendental Meditation article is not about the TM movement. Please do Assume good faith. TimidGuy 12:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the article is too long. And I hear your desire for me to assume good faith.

On this page, I read you saying, "I didn't say that the Transcendental Meditation article is not about the TM movement."

On the TM page I read you saying: "Another reason for the move is that the TM-Sidhi program is different from Transcendental Meditation (the topic of this article). Most people who learn Transcendental Medtiation don't also subsequently learn the TM-Sidhi program. Best not to conflate these two techniques"

When I read this, what I hear is- he thinks the topic of this article is the Transcendental Meditation technique. He wants to split them off, because for him, he thinks that is what this article is about (i.e. "the topic of the article") and he wants to seperate these two techniques.

It is true that I have made assumptions about your motives and the motives of others on Wiki, hell in my life. For the most part I feel pretty clean about my thinking about your motives, I don't dwell there otftn, and in this case I believe I am asking about what you wrote, not my assumptions about you. I have read what you wrote on the TM page and shared my understanding of what I thought you were communicating. Would you be willing to re-read what you wrote and let me know what it is you were trying to say?Sethie 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie, for your thoughtful response. When I said "topic of the article" I meant "title of the article." And I didn't mean to say that discussion of the TM movement doesn't lie within the scope of the article. TimidGuy 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Timidguy, that really clears a lot up for me. Let me sit some and get back to you. love,Sethie 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Sethie. By the way, if moving the TM-sidhi program to a new article stands, then I'm actually quite pleased with the overall organization and scope of the Transcendental Meditation article and don't foresee the need for any more changes to the organization or scope.TimidGuy 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So I have removed the proposed merger... more comments to follow about structuring this and the other tm articles. Sethie 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Sethie. I'm eager to hear your comments.TimidGuy 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 in 1?

So as I read this article, I find three topics- the TM-Siddhi program, yogic flying and the maharishi effect. I know they are all interelated, but why is the Maharishi effect here? I think it belongs in the TM article or with it's own article.

I am also curious about the inclusion of yogic flying info here, given that it has it's own artilce. My inital proposal is to delete the yogic flying article, or move that here.

Just some initial possibilities. Sethie 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. I'm kind of in a hurry right at the moment, but I'll do my best to make a quick post. As you seem to understand, Yogic Flying is one part of the TM-Sidhii program. The Maharishi Effect is hypothesized to be the result of group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. The Maharishi Effect isn't hypothesized for the practice of TM alone. So it would seem appropriate here. We can think further about the proposal to have it be a separate article.

By the way, when I say group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs, here's what happens: people gather together twice a day, once in the morning around 7 am and again in the afternoon about 5 pm. People then practice TM, followed by practice of the TM-Sidhi program. Those who only have learned TM don't participate in this group practice.

I had the same thought about the Yogic Flying article. I agree with you that the best context for an understanding of Yogic Flying is within a discussion of the TM-Sidhi program. I had already posted a comment yesterday on the Yogic Flying talk page noting redundancy with this article and proposing that that redundancy be removed. But it seems like your solution is a good one -- to simply merge Yogic Flying into the TM-Sidhi program article. I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia to get a sense for how to go about this.TimidGuy 01:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will start the process for the merger for yogic flying and tm-sidhi

"The Maharishi Effect is hypothesized to be the result of group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs. The Maharishi Effect isn't hypothesized for the practice of TM alone. So it would seem appropriate here." Well, it hear that it seems more appropriate for you.

If it were a unique pheonomen to the TM-Sidhi program I would agree. However it isn't, so I can't agree! Given what you have said about it, for me it fits better with the TM article (which covers various aspects of the movment) or on it's own, but definatley NOT here. And those are my thoughts about it, right now. 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for starting the process. I'm open to having Maharishi Effect be a separate article.

I don't understand why you say that the Maharishi Effect not a unique phenomenon to the TM-Sidhi program. As far as I know, that's the hypothesis -- group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs, including Yogic Flying, produces the Maharishi Effect when the number of practictioners in the group reaches the square root of the population in a given area. Again, those who have only learned don't participate in group practice. It's only for those who have learned the TM-Sidhi program.TimidGuy 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually am reffering to your words here: "The Maharishi Effect is hypothesized to be the result of group practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs." When I read this, I think, "Oh the ME is produced by practitioners of the TM technique AND the TM-Sidhi program." If this is not the meaning you were trying to convey, would you be willing to re-read that sentence and communicate what you were trying to say?

You say, "those who only learned don't participate in group practice." Do you mean those who only learn the TM technique? If so, this is not true, based on my understanding of your above words and my own experience at MIU and my local TM group. Those who know just the TM technique DO do group practice.

Oops. My apologies. I meant to say that those who have only learned the TM technique don't participate in group practice. Group practice, which creates the Maharishi Effect, is only for those who have learned the TM-Sidhi program.

You say "It's only for those who have learned the TM-Sidhi program." When you say "It" do you mean group practice? Before I can respond to this I need to know what you mean by "it." Sethie 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "it." Thanks for your patience with my lack of clarity. : ) TimidGuy 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In my direct experience it is factually incorrect to say "those who have only learned the TM technique don't participate in group practice." I have done many TM group meditations both at MIU and with my locak TM group.

On the other hand, I have searched the web, and the TM organization does say that a group of individuals practicing the TM-Sidhi technique is what creates the ME. However, nowhere do I find it called "group practice."

So given what you have told me and what I have found, I now understand why the three articles belong together. Sethie 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sethie. It's nice working with you.TimidGuy 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for "Maharishi’s Supreme Military Science"?

Hi there folks. Hey, I get a "missing page" when I click on the reference that links to http://www.invinciblemilitary.org/articles/idc1.html. Tanaats 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. It must have been a temporary problem. Tanaats 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New and nav templates

I added a "main" template at the top and a nav template at the bottom Tanaats 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countering quote

Added quote from learntm website to point out that the TM organization characterizes the current stage of Yogic Flying using the traditional phrasing, "hopping like a frog." This isn't from the Yoga Sutras itself, despite what the website says, but from one of the later upanishads (yogattva upanishad) from about 1400AD, whch provides an informal commentary on aspects of the Yoga Sutras, but it shows that a good-faith attempt is definitely being made to point out that Yogic Flying, Stage One, is NOT floating. Sparaig 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Sparaig, and for beefing up the references.TimidGuy 16:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "This is considered a mainstream interpretation of some kinds of EEG coherence" needs a citation

I added a "fact" template to "This is considered a mainstream interpretation of some kinds of EEG coherence." However, I rather doubt that it's supportable and should probably be taken out. Tanaats 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this transition sentence could be rewritten to remove "mainstream interpretation" (which may be somewhat subjective wording for an encyclopeida) and more specifically references the info presented in the studies. It could simply read: "This correlation between EEG coherence and creativity is supported by a range of other studies." Or something like that. Looks like you found some good studies -- unrelated to meditation -- to support the point.TimidGuy 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me! Tanaats 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced reference?

It looks to me as though the citation at the end of the paragraph beginning with "At a 1994 press conference to announce the analysis of that study" is a mistake. The citation is also found in the next paragraph, which is where it belongs. Tanaats 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Put in a proper reference for that paragraph. Thanks for catching that -- and for all your other great editing on the articles.TimidGuy 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page?

I'm uncomfortable with "Park questions the validity of the study by saying that during the weeks of the experiment Washington D.C.'s weekly murder count "hit the highest level ever recorded." He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page."

AFAIK it's not proper to make such a comment about a quote. I propose that we take out "He doesn't give a reference for this on the cited page." Tanaats 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tanaats. You're correct. That should be deleted. I propose we delete the whole paragraph. The link is defective. It originally referenced Park's blog. According to the guidelines, blogs aren't acceptable as reliable sources. Plus, the quote was taken out of context. TimidGuy 12:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For now, I've taken that particular sentence now and updated the broken cite. I think that blogs of notable people are admissible, but I have to search the WP law library :) to make sure. Then we can discuss it all. Tanaats 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL says to avoid "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority." That, for example, is what makes Dr. OJ's website admissible, I think, since it's really a personal website. Let's discuss it though. Tanaats 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it problematic that he doesn't give a reference for this claim? David OJ cites research for his claims. He develops ideas. Park seemingly just inserts short opinionated statements. I'm actually reluctant to use David's site. Sethie inserted one of the links, and he forced me into a second when he deleted my reference in the cult section to the Harvard research. And I think David's direct rebuttal of Denaro is appropriate, since he has direct knowledge. Also, David's site fits WP:RS in a manner that Park's doesn't: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Park is outside his field of expertise. He showed in his critical article in Skeptical Inquirer that he didn't seem to understand time series analysis. TimidGuy 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno'. AFAIK even the unsupported opinion of a notable professional, if it meets wp:v and wp:rs, is admissible. The information is presented in the appropriate "he says" context. People can follow the link and see that it is uncited. It is more than adequately counterpointed in the sentence immediately following, IMO the sum total is merely to convey to the reader that there is a dispute over the study, which is in fact true. Tanaats 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. Apologies. I assumed that you'd found the original blog item. I see now that you've referenced the item in the Skeptical Inquirer. My comments about blogs don't apply to this reference. I removed the quotation marks, since I couldn't find that exact phrase.TimidGuy 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanaats 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Value of TM-Sidhi© Program

Since there is currently little explanation of why thousands of people have gone to the trouble of learning and practicing the TM-Sidhi Program, other than to improve the environment selflessly through the putative Maharishi Effect, I propose adding to the article: "The point of practicing the TM-Sidhi Program is not in the hopping per se, but in the experience of bliss in the mind of the practitioner, and the consequent release of stress, that accompany the hopping." I suspect that the wording of this can be improved a lot, but it is a start. David 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David. In terms of "what is true" I think that you're headed in the right direction. However, per Wikipedia rules the "truth" of a statement actually has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the statement actually makes it into the article. You can't get statements into the article because they are "true", and you can't get statements out of the article because they are "false". The only thing that determines whether something is in the article is whether it is from a reliable source and is also verifiable.

What you might want to do is to find relevant quotes from an official TM website such as this one. You are then limited to either quoting directly, or else faithfully summarizing without adding any of your own personal knowledge or opinions at all. Tanaats 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry if you already know all of this and so this turned out to be nothing more than a condescending lecture. :) Tanaats 02:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of levitation to Yogic Flying

I have changed the term levitation to Yogic Flying throughout the article:

• As far as I know the TM organization has never officially used the word levitation and
• the terms are intermixed in the article, and I hope this will create consistency.(olive 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Square root of 1%

This question has come up a couple times. The hypothesis is indeed that the square root of 1 percent of a given population is the number necessary to have a coherent effect in society. For example, the U.S. population is 300 million. Type this into Google: square root of (1% of 300,000,000). It returns a value of 1,732. That's the number of people practicing that TM-Sidhi program in a group that's hypothesized to have a coherent effect on this U.S. Here's a page that explains the hypothesis.[2] TimidGuy 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Amusingly, the square root of 1% is 10%. But the square root of (1% of some quantity) equals 10% of (the square root of the quantity). The wording used in this and other similar articles actually does not make it clear which result is being referred to! The reason for the ambiguity is probably the "intiutive" assumption that taking the square root of something always makes it smaller. Not so, but in an odd way, intuition is actually correct here, more or less. (Unless, of course, there's a secret agenda to steer one tenth of the population towards a religion, using the mysterious power of ambiguous mathematics. . . "If you can do Math, you can do Anything!") Parsiferon 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Great explanation. I now see the potential problem. TimidGuy 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite the calculations used by the Maharishi to arrive at this figure? How exactly did he conclude that "the square root of 1% of the population" would be the figure required to initiate the Maharishi Effect? Or did he just pull it out of the end of his thumb? ermadogErmadog (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conflict of interest

Regarding the research on the Sidhi techniques, I believe it should be mentioned that the cited researchers are all affiliated one way or another with the TM program and/or MUM. Judyjoejoe 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a good point, and very true that the researchers cited have had or have affiliations with Maharishi University of Management. However, these researchers are not involved in editing this article, which they, I guess would have to be for there to be a conflict of interest. The research studies cited with one exception have been published in well-accepted publications such as International Journal of Neuroscience, Experimental Neurology, and Psychosomatic Medicine. In other words, this material is peer-reviewed, in acceptable publications so these are good references given Wikipedia guidelines. As well its not uncommon for the experts in a field to be cited as references. What is important, I believe, is that the research be published in peer reviewed publications. If this wasn't peer-reviewed material, one could question the source.Perhaps that is what you are referring to. That said, one paper is not peer-reviewed from what I can see, and that could possibly be removed if editors find it objectionable.(olive 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps the most controversial study, the Washingtonn DC experiment, was coauthored by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department’s statistician, who provided the FBI crime data. (The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Social Indicators Research.) TimidGuy 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

However, there are indications that the accuracy of the research is questionable. See, letter from former professor at MIU http://web.archive.org/web/20050313200054/www.trancenet.org/personal/roark.shtml Judyjoejoe 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that critic sites have a lot of incorrect information. According to university records, Dennis Roark wasn't dean of faculty or head of the physics department 1975-1980, as he states. These sorts of critic sites are disallowed as sources on Wikipedia for good reason. None of the 600 studies related to Transcendental Meditation or the TM-Sidhi program has ever been accused of being fraudulent. This research has been conducted at hundreds of universities and research centers around the world. If there is any evidence of fraud regarding a particular study, the particular institution should be notified. They have mechanisms for investigating this. Roark's claim that negative results are suppressed is belied by the published studies themselves, some of which show equivocal or negative results. See, for example, two of the studies by Alexander that are cited by Canter & Ernst's metaanalysis of studies on cognitive function which show negative results. TimidGuy 10:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So the guy is lying about being head of the physics department? Judyjoejoe 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with these web sites is that you don't really know where the information came from. Roark may not himself have claimed this but someone could have added it to make it sound impressive. Records don't show that he was both head of the physics department and dean of faculty during this period. Those who recall him speculate that there may have been a short period when the head of the physics department was out of the country and Roark was acting head. He was brilliant but he had a pretty low profile at the university and in the physics department.

His letter doubts whether the EEG can be measured during gross body movement because of the artifacts produced by movement. According to researcher David Orme-Johnson, Roark doesn't seem to realize that there are many EEG studies of runners, astronauts, etc., where the subject is moving. One approach to dealing with artifacts that many scientists use is to remove them with digital filtering. A more conservative approach, which the TM scientists used, was to eliminate from the data set epochs with artifacts in them. TimidGuy 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I need to learn more about Wikipedia, but I don't understand why critic sites are disallowed. I have read criticism of TM research regarding methodology, self selection in subjects, lack of proper control groups, and researchers who are practitioners of what they are studying and affiliated with institutions that teach what they are studying. These are fair criticisms of the research and should appear in the article. Judyjoejoe 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Judy, for asking. The problem is that these facts are incorrect. There are many randomized controlled trials in which subjects with no interest in TM were recruited. Almost all of the studies use control groups (except the neurophysiological studies). And the studies have been conducted by researchers at hundreds of universities and research centers worldwide. Principal investigators at major universities, such as Archie Wilson at U.C. Irvine, don't practice TM. You can maybe start by reading WP:V to see the policy regarding web sites. TimidGuy 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sweeping generalization requires substantiation. There are dozens of studies and reviews at the Behind the TM Facade website that refute or question TM's claims. Can you provide me with a list of factual or methodological errors in these studies? ermadogErmadog (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does this make sense?

"Some of kings of the Himalayan kingdoms kept speed-runners from this tradition to carry messages over long distances"

Does this make sense? How would 'keeping speed-runners from this tradition' help them with their task? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.68.173 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up.Good point.I believe the tradition refers to the system for Flying maintained from Tibetan Budhism of which yogic-running noted in the preceding lines is a initial aspect. I'll try and clarify this in the article. I other words, as I understand it, these speed runners trained in this tradition from Tibetan Buddhism of which the first stage is called speed -running (where the runner covered the ground in long jumps) were kept by kings to carry messages.Any better.(olive 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[3] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)