The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of gloss on really, really poorly designed study>

No, it "goes like" this: when one bases one's supposed conclusion upon data mined from a cherry-picked self-selected small group, one obviates the mere possibility of considering one's conclusion significant, meaningful, or even honest.

The term you are searching for is, "glaring methodological flaw".

<snip of further misunderstanding of exepriemental design>

.

Again, no. It "goes like" this: when one selects a group of hypeertensive subjects, and treats one group with any kind of technique at all, while treatig the oter group with nothing at all, one is not testing one's pet treatment against other, proven treatments. This is the reason for double blinding; this is the reason for placebo treatments.

By this research it was found that TM indeed reduces the stress of hypertensive students, which has a good impact on their blood-pressure.

Um, no. It "goes like" this: by this "research" it was indicated that TM^TM©®-alization may be better than nothing at all (or, more specifically, better than delaying any kind of treatment at all).

I suppose basic experimental design is beyond the "higher consciousness".

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>
4. Answering questions that have gone before: like where do the terms variant, invariant and linkage appear in the studies you linked?

emphasis added

Done in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176964&postcount=605

Well, no. It "goes like" this: You, claiming that a study incorporates your conceit of the "linkage" "among" the"variant" and the "invariant" is not the same as the studies themselves using, or alluding to, or referencing the terms you claim for them.

How far afield you have huckleberried...

 

[doronshadmi]

No, it "goes like" this: when one bases one's supposed conclusion upon data mined from a cherry-picked self-selected small group, one obviates the mere possibility of considering one's conclusion significant, meaningful, or even honest.

The term you are searching for is, "glaring methodological flaw".

Some facts:

Psychosomatic Medicine, founded in 1939, is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Psychosomatic Society. It publishes experimental and clinical studies dealing with various aspects of the relationships among social, psychological, and behavioral factors and bodily processes in humans and animals.

(http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/pages/aboutthejournal.aspx)

The reviewers of Psychosomatic Medicine accepted Dr. Orme-Johnson's paper exactly because they have found that 5 years research among more than 10,000 people, that is based on standard statistical methods, is considered as a valid scientific research paper.

I agree that there can be a better research on this subject, and Dr. Orme-Johnson is aware of it when he writes:

More random assignment studies are
needed to further clarify the relationship
between the TM program, health-promoting
behavior, and health. However, largescale
studies of this type are difficult to do
for a number of practical reasons; random
assignment experiments were nonexistent
in one review of ADM impact (2) and those
that did exist on the effects of mental health
treatment on medical utilization were
small, with a median N = 22 (3). The present
study had a larger N than all but 1 of
25 studies cited in the first review (2) and
a larger N than all 58 studies cited in the
second review (3). The present study also
had a longer treatment duration than all
but 3 of the 25 studies in the first review
(2).

In other words, the results of Dr. Orme-Johnson's 5 years research can be changed by random assignment studies on larger amount of people, yet the reviewers of Psychosomatic Medicine considered it as scientifically valid and they decided to publish it.

Um, no. It "goes like" this: by this "research" it was indicated that TM^TM©®-alization may be better than nothing at all (or, more specifically, better than delaying any kind of treatment at all).

Some facts:

The American Journal of Hypertension is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for scientific inquiry of the highest standards in the field of hypertension and related cardiovascular disease. The journal publishes high-quality original research and review articles on basic sciences, molecular biology, clinical and experimental hypertension, cardiology, epidemiology, pediatric hypertension, endocrinology, neurophysiology, and nephrology.

The journal is well-regarded, with an Impact Factor of 3.402 and a current ranking of 20 of 65 by Impact Factor in the Peripheral Vascular Disease category of the 2013 JCR Science Edition.

(http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ajh/about.html)

The reviewers of The American Journal of Hypertension accepted http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/1326.short paper exactly because they have found that it stands in the required scientific standards of The American Journal of Hypertension.

The results of this short term research on two small groups, were accepted by The American Journal of Hypertension, which demonstrates that your general claim about small groups is not considered as an unconditional criterion for rejecting papers, among the scientific community.

As for the considered paper, its aim was to check if TM has any impact at all on BP among young adults that share the same environmental conditions.

According to http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/1326.short paper TM has measurable positive impact on BP reduction among young adults that share the same environmental conditions.

I suppose basic experimental design is beyond the "higher consciousness".

Only through the eyes of an unconditional rejector like you, about the considered papers.

Your TM^TM©® expression is your trademark as an unconditional rejector about the considered subject.

 

[doronshadmi]

emphasis added



Well, no. It "goes like" this: You, claiming that a study incorporates your conceit of the "linkage" "among" the"variant" and the "invariant" is not the same as the studies themselves using, or alluding to, or referencing the terms you claim for them.

How far afield you have huckleberried...

Well, you simply demonstrate once more your unconditional rejection of TM principle of the linkage among the calm (invariant) state of mind and the active (variant) state of mind, where the active aspect includes also the measurable improved correlations in the human body.

 

[doronshadmi]

How can I respond to nonsense? I don't even know what you're talking about. I suppose the invariable side of truth is that if it's true it's really true. Gee whillikers.

First you mark http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173399&postcount=555 as nonsense.

Then you say that you don't even know what I'm talking about (in that case you are not capable to know if it is nonsense or not).

Then you "suppose the invariable side of truth is that if it's true it's really true."

So please make up your mind before you reply.

----------------------------------------------

Archilochus: πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ("the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing")

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox)

I say: "the fox knows many truths, but the hedgehog knows one big truth".

"the fox knows many truths" is equivalent to

... they're all true in their own way.

In other words, you are a fox.

I am not only a fox or only an hedgehog, because my suggested framework is not less than hedgehog AND fox linkage.

 

[realpaladin]

I am not only a fox or only a hedgehog, because my suggested framework is not less than hedgehog AND fox linkage.

You have no suggested framework. You have unsubstantiated claims and 'fabricated proofs' by well-known charlatans.

Again, just one (1) experiment where either the experimenter OR the subjects where not in on the joke.

As it stands all you present is the classic 'conjurer & stooges' setup.

 

[Donn]

Nice metaphor, which demonstrates how one gets things only at the surface level of that pool.

So my suggestion to you is also to dive into the calm depth of this pool, in order to directly know its invariant aspect.

Wow, you got the metaphor wrong. I should not be so surprised.

To speak about X is not the same as actually being at X, and TBM can't actually be at X exactly because its practice is based on Buddhism, which according to it everything is variant.

Thanks for dismissing everything I said.

I'm gonna pull the plug for a while. Too much depth and not enough substance.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for space>

Some facts:

The best paper you can offer, the one that you called your "favourite" out of 500⁺, is fundamentally badly designed.

To overcome that fundamental, glaring design issue, you resort to argumentum ad actoriate. continuing your "higher consciousness" technique of making unsupported assertions (in this case, reading the minds of "The reviewers of Psychosomatic Medicine" and alluding to research you have not presented (which, if designed to the standards of your "favourite", will do your "cause" more harm than good).

Highlighting "peer reviewed" is no more than further argumentum ad actoriate, unless you are one of those innocents who believes that "peer reviewed" means "right".

Your "short study" of "small groups", indicates, if anything, that TM^TM©® does, in fact, have an impact measurably different from doing nothing at all (or even salting your data field). It does not, however, in any way, compare the effects of TM^TM©® with any other CAM, or with any demonstrably effective hypertension treatment.

Only through the eyes of an unconditional rejector like you, about the considered papers.

I see. Because your heart is pure, and your consciousness is "higher", the flaws and shortcomings of the best studies you can offer should be ignored, glossed over, and treated as a nullities. Any other response is, to you, "unconditional" rejection.

How funny that, to you, the fact that I am unimpressed by research that fails of the conditions of good design makes me an "unconditional" rejector. It appears that what you mean is that you are an uncritcal acceptor.

Your TM^TM©® expression is your trademark as an unconditional rejector about the considered subject.

First, it is incorrect of you to call that my 'trademark". I would suggest that you learn what words mean before you use them, but, given your abuse of other terms, I realize that grammar and lexicon are beneath the "higher consciousness".

Second, is it no longer true that TM^TM©® is a zealously protected brand name for a "method" that is aggressively marketed and sold? To the outside observer, TM^TM©® is packaged and managed like any other multi-level marketing scheme. As such, the construction TM^TM©® merely gives credit where credit is demanded, acknowledging what the TM^TM©® brand is good at. OTH, even if the "techniques" of TM^TM©® were disseminated for free, they would still have to live up to the claims made by TM^TM©®-sellers.

Third, anything I accept, I accept on the basis of actual evidence. Fulfill that "condition", and I am interested. Fail at that first fence, and and you get to stand over there with all the other woo!-meisters.

 

[Donn]

I see. Because your heart is pure, and your consciousness is "higher", the flaws and shortcomings of the best studies you can offer should be ignored, glossed over, and treated as a nullities. Any other response is, to you, "unconditional" rejection.

It appears that what you mean is that you are an uncritcal acceptor.

I am trying to coin the term "Acceptic" for this!

Second, is it no longer true that TM^TM©® is a zealously protected brand name for a "method" that is aggressively marketed and sold? To the outside observer, TM^TM©® is packaged and managed like any other multi-level marketing scheme. As such, the construction TM^TM©® merely gives credit where credit is demanded, acknowledging what the TM^TM©® brand is good at. OTH, even if the "techniques" of TM^TM©® were disseminated for free, they would still have to live up to the claims made by TM^TM©®-sellers.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some facts:

The best paper you can offer, the one that you called your "favourite" out of 500⁺, is fundamentally badly designed.

To overcome that fundamental, glaring design issue, you resort to argumentum ad actoriate. continuing your "higher consciousness" technique of making unsupported assertions (in this case, reading the minds of "The reviewers of Psychosomatic Medicine" and alluding to research you have not presented (which, if designed to the standards of your "favourite", will do your "cause" more harm than good).

Highlighting "peer reviewed" is no more than further argumentum ad actoriate, unless you are one of those innocents who believes that "peer reviewed" means "right".

Your "short study" of "small groups", indicates, if anything, that TM^TM©® does, in fact, have an impact measurably different from doing nothing at all (or even salting your data field). It does not, however, in any way, compare the effects of TM^TM©® with any other CAM, or with any demonstrably effective hypertension treatment.

Slowvehicle did not replay in details to the contents of following posts:

Post 1: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10176820#post10176820

Slowvehicle's "detailed reply" to Post 1: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176929&postcount=597


Post 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639

Slowvehicle's "detailed reply" to Post 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180312&postcount=641, which is actually a repeated shorter version of his http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 post (this post was written before Post 2, and since he uses a shorter version of it as a reply to Post 2, it is quit clear that he actually ignores the details of Post 2).


Post 3: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180719&postcount=643

Slowvehicle's "detailed reply" to Post 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180958&postcount=648, which is another repeated shorter version of his http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 post.

Highlighting "peer reviewed" is no more than further argumentum ad actoriate, unless you are one of those innocents who believes that "peer reviewed" means "right".

According to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176333&postcount=590 it is clearly shown that Slowvehicle forgot to include himself as one of those innocents who believes that "peer reviewed" means "right".

First, it is incorrect of you to call that my 'trademark".

TM^TM©® is exactly your cynical/grotesque expression about TM, which clearly demonstrates your axiomatic rejection of it.

Third, anything I accept, I accept on the basis of actual evidence.

This is funny.

(in this case, reading the minds of "The reviewers of Psychosomatic Medicine"

A simple fact (actual evidence) that Slowvehicle has troubles with it: Orme-Johnson's paper was accepted and published by Psychosomatic Medicine. No reviewers' minds reading is needed here.

This is some demonstration of why Slowvehicle's "anything I accept, I accept on the basis of actual evidence" is funny.


Also it is not surprising that Slowvehicle ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180758&postcount=644.

 

[bruto]

First you mark http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10173399&postcount=555 as nonsense.

Then you say that you don't even know what I'm talking about (in that case you are not capable to know if it is nonsense or not). Then you "suppose the invariable side of truth is that if it's true it's really true."

So please make up your mind before you reply.

----------------------------------------------
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog_and_the_Fox)

I say: "the fox knows many truths, but the hedgehog knows one big truth".

"the fox knows many truths" is equivalent to


In other words, you are a fox.

I am not only a fox or only an hedgehog, because my suggested framework is not less than hedgehog AND fox linkage.

You have defined nonsense.

Your final sentences reiterate a confusion that seems to permeate your thinking. If I'm a fox I'm a fox, not a hedgehog. Of course, we may share a lineage, and of course we share a linkage: we're mammals, we have four legs, we live in holes, we breathe air, and we live in the universe. And of course we also differ. A hedgehog does not have a bushy tail or red fur, and it would rather eat an apple than a chicken, and on and on and on. Nobody denies this. But belonging to a class does not make things the same. It does not even exclude the possibility of other classes that are incompatible. The linkage does not make a fox a hedgehog.

As usual, I'm reminded of an old joke about a woman who has to go to the doctor after having become stuck to a newly varnished toilet seat. You can put a frame around anything.

 

[realpaladin]

Slowvehicle did not replay in details to the contents of following posts:

<SNIP>

Also it is not surprising that Slowvehicle ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180758&postcount=644.

- Kibitzing about insignificant details: check
- Attacking the arguer not the argument: check
- Being rude: check

I think I will apply for the 1 Million dollars: I can predict Doron Shadmi perfectly.

On the other hand, if he does not quickly tune down with regards to 'veiled insults', I will report him again.

 

[Donn]

The linkage does not make a fox a hedgehog.

Yabbut, you don't geddit. Now you have the linkage and the fox and the hedgehog. It's all invariable wrt variables that never vary. Do try to keep up.

 

[realpaladin]

Yabbut, you don't geddit. Now you have the linkage and the fox and the hedgehog. It's all invariable wrt variables that never vary. Do try to keep up.

/me starts loading the 12-Gauge.

/me mutters "Damn wildlife creeping around everywhere. And bringing all that dirty linkage with it..."

 

[Donn]

 

[doronshadmi]

You can put a frame around anything.

In the case of the fox there are many frames to many things.

In the case of the hedgehog there is one frame to all things.

My suggested framework is at least hedgehog AND fox linkage.

 

[realpaladin]

In the case of the fox there are many frames to many things.

In the case of the hedgehog there is one frame to all things.

My suggested framework is at least hedgehog AND fox linkage.

One hedgehog to rule them all?

 

[bruto]

Yabbut, you don't geddit. Now you have the linkage and the fox and the hedgehog. It's all invariable wrt variables that never vary. Do try to keep up.

Yeah, I know it's all part of the big big picture, and we're all starlight and we've got to get back to the garden, but I hope I don't meet a hedgefox when I get there. The damn thing will grab my chicken with its tail.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle did not replay in details to the contents of following posts:

I confess that I am puzzled by the rhetorical device to which you have resorted in this post; that is, the odd third-person reference. It seems to be the province of a certain class, or type, of the woo!-perstitious. Others of your ilk resort to it, and I have never understood why.

To whom is the post addressed? What rhetorical advantage do you think you gain, through the employ of the third-person reference?

Ah, well.

I once asked you a questions after a specific purpose, and you ignored it. I repeat it here: Have you ever done any kind of fine arts performance under the auspices of a very good director?

Post 1: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10176820#post10176820

Slowvehicle's "detailed reply" to Post 1: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176929&postcount=597

I am puzzled that you are not embarrassed to pretend to be deluded into claiming that I intended
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176929&postcount=597
to be a "response in details [sic]" to any of your post, as I quoted a specific bit, to wit:

Orme-Johnson research can't be considered as scientific in the first place, without invariant AND variant linkage.

You have, by by the way not addressed the content of my post.

Post 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639

Slowvehicle's "detailed reply" to Post 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180312&postcount=641, which is actually a repeated shorter version of his http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 post (this post was written before Post 2, and since he uses a shorter version of it as a reply to Post 2, it is quit clear that he actually ignores the details of Post 2).

Given that my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10176333#post10176333, in its first line, as "Just a few general observations" about the Orem-Johnsosn study with the self-selected non-random small-group data mine, your responses seem dishonest, to be generous.

My post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10178471#post10178471 is a direct response to your request that I address the glaring methodological flaw in Dr. Orme-Johnson's work...which I have now done, several times. The methodological flaws are not repaired, nor do they go away, because you ignore them, gloss over them, or wish them into the closest cornfield.

Post 3: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180719&postcount=643

Slowvehicle's "detailed reply" to Post 2: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180958&postcount=648, which is another repeated shorter version of his http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 post.

My post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10180312#post10180312
...addresses your gloss of both the poorly-designed studies, reflecting your own patronizing style.

Those same methodological flaws do not disappear just because you chant the mantra "peerreviewedpeerreviewedpeerreviewed". When you continue to ignore the fundamental methodological flaws for which you asked, you should expect them to be repeated and emphasized.

According to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176333&postcount=590 it is clearly shown that Slowvehicle forgot to include himself as one of those innocents who believes that "peer reviewed" means "right".

Given that that neither the term, nor the concept, of peer review appears, or is mentioned in:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10176333#post10176333
...your comment seems dishonestly self-serving. Or, does "clearly shown", in the impersonal passive voice, have a special meaning to the "higher consciousness"?

TM^TM©® is exactly your cynical/grotesque expression about TM, which clearly demonstrates your axiomatic rejection of it.

Again, this seems dishonest. I carefully do, in fact, refer to the organized machine of packaging and selling TM^TM©®$ as TM^TM©®$. On purpose, and for what I consider good reason. It is not, however, my "trademark", as you misspoke. You are using the word, "trademark", incorrectly. You also appear to be using the term, "axiomatic", incorrectly. A careful speaker might cavil at your use of "grotesque", but that's a bagatelle, at best.

This is funny.

I am glad you found my statement amusing; your amusement does not make it less true.

Perhaps you should clarify your understanding of the term, "evidence".

Read my sig, sweetie. Badly-crafted, data-mined "studies" do not comprise actual evidence. I have already pointed out that it has, in fact, been clinically demonstrated that TM^TM©®$ may have an effect upon hypertensive subjects different from the effect of doing nothing at all. I accept that actual evidence.

A simple fact (actual evidence) that Slowvehicle has troubles with it: Orme-Johnson's paper was accepted and published by Psychosomatic Medicine. No reviewers' minds reading is needed here.

The "mind-reading" is your assumed "explanation": of what "peer-reviewed" implies in the minds of the reviewers of "the peer-reviewed journal Psychosomatic Medicine". Do remember that Cyril Burt's work was published in "peer-reviewed journals".

Slowvehicle has "troubles" with Orme-Johnson's "work" due to the methodological flaws he explained above, for the reasons he explained above.

This is some demonstration of why Slowvehicle's "anything I accept, I accept on the basis of actual evidence" is funny.

You appear to be misusing, or abusing, the phrase, "actual evidence".

Also it is not surprising that Slowvehicle ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180758&postcount=644.

How many times would you care for your errors to be pointed out to you? Is "ignores" another word that has a different meaning for the "higher consciousness"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yeah, I know it's all part of the big big picture, and we're all starlight and we've got to get back to the garden, but I hope I don't meet a hedgefox when I get there. The damn thing will grab my chicken with its tail.

"Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
Hatee-hatee-hattee-ho!"