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?].
Yes.
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:
Here is what you wrote there:
If the best of the papers you cite is not scientific, of what value at all are any of the others?
Your arguments about Orem-Johnsosn study were not addressed, yet. They can be addressed if you provide rigorous scientific evidence that 5 years research among 10,000 people (as done by Orem-Johnsosn study) absolutely can't provide any meaningful scientific results whatsoever. So please provide this rigorous scientific evidence, which clearly address your argument about the poor scientific value of Oren-Johnsosn study.
Also the current fact is that you totally ignored most of what I wrote in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10176820#post10176820 , so please this time also address it
in details.
Suppose you provide a link to a study of which you approve, a study that demonstrates celarly that no science can be "done" outside the constraints of your "invariant AND variant linkage"?
You are more than welcome to provide some accepted scientific research that uses mathematical formulas, such that the
invariant AND invariant linkage is not involved in these mathematical formulas. When you provide such accepted scientific research, please support it
in details.
You have, by by the way not addressed the content of my post.
You systematically ignored the details of my replies in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180719&postcount=643, exactly because all your replies until this very moment are based again and again on your
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 that still have to be supported by clearly show that:
1) 5 years research among 10,000 people (as done by Orem-Johnsosn study) absolutely can't provide any meaningful scientific results whatsoever.
2) TM has no positive effect whatsoever on BP of young adults (the research that was accepted and published in the
American Journal of Hypertension was clearly done by using short time on two small groups, where its aim was to check if TM has any positive effect whatsoever on BP among young adults, and clearly not the compare alternative treatments for BP among young adults, so you actually demonstrate that you do not understand the aims of
http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/1326.short).
Furthermore, the fact that this research was accepted and published in the
American Journal of Hypertension also demonstrates that your argument about the amount of the people that are participated in some scientific research,
is not unconditionally used in order to reject scientific researches, so your argument about the amount of the people that are participated in some scientific research, is not
unconditionally supported).
So, until now you rejected the decisions of two high rank scientific journals,
without providing even a single scientific consistent evidence which supports your arguments.
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.
It was addressed in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639 and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180719&postcount=643. The only dishonesty here is that you:
1) You did not reply
in details to their contents.
2) You did not
scientifically support your argument about the amount of the people that are used in Orem-Johnsosn reseach.
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.
Your argument about the flaw in Dr. Orme-Johnson's 5 years research among 10,000 people, is still unsupported, no matter how many times it is directed to your scientifically unsupported
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 post.
So this time pleas
scientifically support your
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.
Once again, your
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180312&postcount=641 post:
1) Do not reply
in details to any of my posts, about the considered subjects.
2) Your arguments in your
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10180312&postcount=641 post are not
scientifically supported.
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"?
The relevant part in Orme-Johnson's work is clearly given in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178980&postcount=639, the quote of what you say above demonstrates once again how you
systematically ignore
the details of my replies to you, on this subject.
Again, this seems dishonest. I carefully do, in fact, refer to the organized machine of packaging and selling TMTM©®$ as TMTM©®$. On purpose, and for what I consider good reason. It is not, however, my "trademark", as you misspoke. You are using the word, "trademark", incorrectly. You also appear to be using the term, "axiomatic", incorrectly. A careful speaker might cavil at your use of "grotesque", but that's a bagatelle, at best.
Your cynical/grotesque use of TM
TM©®$ clearly demonstrates your
fundamental negative approach about TM.
I have already pointed out that it has, in fact, been clinically demonstrated that TMTM©®$ may have an effect upon hypertensive subjects different from the effect of doing nothing at all. I accept that actual evidence.
1) The aim of
http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/1326.short research was to check if TM has
any positive effect whatsoever on BP among young adults, and clearly not the compare alternative treatments for BP among young adults, so by your criticism (as appear in your
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633 post) about it, it is clearly shown that you don't understand the aim of
http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/1326.short research.
2) Since you now claim that you "accept that actual evidence", then your argument (also found in your
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10178471&postcount=633) about the amount of people in Orme-Johnson's work
is not supported by your own reasoning.
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".
Orme-Johnson's work was published in
Psychosomatic Medicine. No "mind-reading" (which is actually
your assumed "explanation") is needed here.
Do remember that Cyril Burt's work was published in "peer-reviewed journals".
You also have to remember this when you write in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176333&postcount=590:
This one is interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38360/
After addressing the lack of rigour, and the problems with adequately overcoming selection bias, the meta-study concludes: "As a whole, firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence."
Moreover, you did not reply
in details to my arguments (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176820&postcount=591) about your
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10176333&postcount=590 post.
Slowvehicle has "troubles" with Orme-Johnson's "work" due to the methodological flaws he explained above, for the reasons he explained above.
No. As exposed in this post, Slowvehicle reasoning about the considered subjects, is inconsistent.
You appear to be misusing, or abusing, the phrase, "actual evidence".
You appear to be based on your own inconsistent reasoning, which clearly can't be used for any actual evidence about the considered subjects.
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"?
How many times you ignore
the details of my replies to your posts, and how long it will take you to realize that you are inconsistent with your own reasoning (as clearly has been exposed in this post)?
you been doing all the heavy lifting, along with Slowvehicle! I just danced in to decorate your saloon with some ribbons and garlands and that
I find it interesting that doronshadmi has completely ignored his posts.
, then don't bother)
