User:Tuckerj1976/Arbitration evidence

__NOINDEX__

Rebuttal to Hickorybark
I am somewhat surprised that someone who teaches the scientific method seems, from his comments regarding both the method and TM research, to be un-familiar with the philosophy of science. Might I recommend the following 20th century thinkers as a starting point? [], [], [], [], []. A good introductory text might be [], or []. These are easy to read introductions. With direct reference to TM research might I suggest (in easily understood prose) : [], []. I hope this is of help. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Hickorybark Not at all Hick. I just assumed from your statement that you were new to the subject and I thought Carl Hempel might be a little advanced for you. Ease you in with the popular thinkers who also wrote easily understood prose. Hempel should really come after the introductions, a little like Popper (who should certainly comes before Humpel) in any introduction. Perhaps this is where you have been going wrong? Sorry about that but good to see you have been reading a little around the subject. However, really I think you should skim over one of the introductory books I mentioned first or even the relevant chapter in this []. Might prove useful Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

@Hickorybark Can I ask a question by the way? ( As someone who lectures in science methodology at a postgraduate level (for 40 years): do you teach your students the following "Instead of falling down, which is the most probable outcome, the body would fall up, or to the left or to the right, or in any desired direction []"., Indeed would you agree with TM physicist Dr Hagelin that: "If somebody would ask you about your Yogic Flying practice, 'doesn't it violate Newton's Law of Gravity?', the first thing you should say is that Newton's Law of Gravity is a seventeenth century law![]".

Thanks  Tucker talk 05:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to The David Spector ref The Anti-TM Editors
Overview. David (looking at his edits) is a nice guy. He seems polite, introducing structured comments and arguments. He never edit wars or seems to lose his civility. He is also VERY open about his COI and affiliations with NSR (a rival mantra meditation program, taught at minimum cost, with no additional fees or courses and free of anything that might be considered a "religious" or "spiritual" background or paraphernalia) As an organization it does not appear to hold any political, economic, psychological or social agenda. It was created and marketed by a former TM instructor. Again, David comes across as a genuine editor, and I have no problems with his manner in wiki editing or communication. I also believe that he is genuine about his beliefs in the validity of TM research. Indeed, a look at the NSR webpage stresses this fact stating that TM is:

"# Scientific research has demonstrated that the most beneficial meditation technique is Transcendental Meditation® or TM® (trademark disclaimer). []

And here is the "rub", NSR "trades" on the validity of TM research. Thus anyone supporting it will equally be prone to support TM research and the health benefits of mantra meditation. With this in mind:

but disagree that TM or the TMM are in any way religious--this topic is not black and white, not simple and obvious)

This may well be the case, and indeed the article reflects disagreement regarding this matter [] It is not the role of wiki editors to make a decision either way. It is rather that we present all of the evidence. What disconcerts me is the blatant manner that the "pro" TM editors attempt to hide this controversy because it may not agree with TMs public image.

Wioth ref to what he calls anti wiki editors characterizing them (and I assume by this he includes me:

They are somewhat secretive about their RL affiliations. I get the feeling that some of them may be drawn from the handful of well-known opponents of TM who seed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) around the Web

Personally, for me nothing could be further from the truth. In RL I am involved in medicine and that is all I feel I need to disclose. I have never practiced TM and was only brought here due to a colleague who found the blatant lies in the article regarding the state of the research both funny and deeply disturbing, a view I share. If it had not been due to this article I would not have examined the movement in the detail I have now done. I certainly, have more to do then seed FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) around the Web. My concern is with the lies in this article and the positive "spin" placed on the movement (I think if I was one of the people mentioned, I would be happy to edit the other TM movement articles, but I do not. I am only interested in the claimed health benefits. I have already  had a checkuser done to see if I am one of two other editors here. I would be happy to see this extended across all of the present editors. I have also said that I would be happy to be topic banned from this article as long as I was sure it would bring the balance to the edits the article so desperately needs. There are a number of other article I would like to get involved in.

Alas, I do not have the space to answer the other comments but I think you get the drift. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I answer some of this in my Evidence section. I will point out here that I wasn't including Tucker in my criticisms. Tucker is a newcomer to the article, so I don't have enough to go on to form an opinion about him or her. I also wish to clarify that all of the zealous opponents to TM are former TM meditators with grudges. Not one is an objective, independent person who has objections to the scientific research or the "religious" aspects of TM. They are mostly concerned with "cults" and "damage from meditation". And there are roughly eight of them in the world. I also suspect that a particular fan of TM whom I suspect of posting on the Web to defend TM for pay is one of the editors. Zealots/true believers/evangelicals/extremists, of whatever POV, are a pain in the butt to everyone who wants intelligent progress for the world (or for WP). David Spector 22:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)