Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 4

message: I suggest that we do as suggested in wikipedia:refactoring_talk_pages. No one can prevent it from hapening. One can ignore it, but not stop it. --Lumière 14:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The 216kb talk page was no longer active. The only active section is directly above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is as if you were saying that editors are not allowed to write in the talk page something they believe is important and relevant to the article. Forget about the fact that it is a refactoring. Me and others are allowed to write what we think is useful in this talk page. You could argue that you do not want the active version to be refactored (because you like it long and you don't want anything to be cut), but now that you have archived it, you cannot object to it anymore. Creating an archive for the  original version is a part of refactoring. You just helped the process. Thanks! --Lumière 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring the talk page.  

message: We might need to check it more carefully, but it seems that Dr Otis study only appeared in a book that was published by a general publisher. The standard for scientific research is a peer-reviewed journal. If it is not a peer-reviewed journal, it better have a pretty good reputation in the subject area.  Even with a reputable publisher, a book has a very low reputability because the editors of the book can essentially publish whatever they want in this book. At the least, if we have a reputable publisher for the book, the subject of the book and the editors will be carefully chosen.  The publisher was  Aldine Publishing Company.  I tried to find out more about this publisher and it was not easy. There was not much on the web about this publisher. I think it was started in Germany, but not sure. After some research, I found this website http://www.philsp.com/data/data302.html, in which we can see that the publisher also publishes children's book.  This is very strange. I never seen that before. It must be a mistake.  Until we have further information, we have to consider that the study was not published in a reputable source. If we get back to the previous NPOV version (the one we had before Hipocrite dropped everything that was in favor of TM), it will make more sense that we keep it in this article until we find out more about the publisher. Lumière 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go get the book out of a library. It's neither a childrens book nor a general interest book. The publisher is in Hawthorne, New York. Go look up "Aldine de Gruyter," the current name for the imprint. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not talking about the book, but the publisher. Anyway, you are telling me that the publisher has a new name. So, I have to check again. Lumière 01:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Hipocrite. Wikipedia's standards are not the same as scientific research standards. Take a look at some other articles' sources - comic books, fanzines, websites, etc. If it's independently verifiable, it counts. We don't need to see the publisher's credentials. That's why we have a content disclaimer. Kafziel 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not what the poliocy says. It says that what is a reputable source depends on the type of contents. It also says that it is preferable to have a peer-reviewed journal for scientific content. And, of course, the policy requires that we evaluate the sources, which is needed if it is not a peer-reviewed journal. If we don't agree on the policy, we will not have consensus.    Lumière 01:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course the Wikipedia standards are not the same as for a scientific journal. They are only stronger for scientific contents. We do not accept original research, whereas a scientific journal does. An encyclopedia should have a higher standard. A scientific theory that was just published in one reputable journal but with no follow-up will not normally find its place in an encyclopedia. We accept them in Wikîpedia, but still we do not have lower standards, except when it is misinterpreted. Lumière 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  You confuse a broader range of topics with lower standards. We have a broader range of topics, which means that we need different standards for different types of contents. However, we certainly do not have lower standards for any of these types of contents. Lumière 01:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Otis study: in a book published by a general publisher.  

message: Sethie, The required citation for each of your request is already given. There is no need to cite it each time. I think that you misinterpret the Verifiability and No origibal research policies. These policies do not say that the content that is sourced  must correspond words for words to the sources. The criteria for no original research is that the content that is sourced is totally backed by the sources, not that it is there words for words. --Lumière 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pure OR. I reverted to 22:00, because "contravercial" has three cites the first time it's used, up at the top of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About request for citations in the Dr Otis paragraph 

message: Sorry for interrupting, but I think this subject serves as an excellent example that relates to foundational questions about NPOV itself. Meditation is a subjective experience that is inherently non-scientific, however, it is interesting to understand its "objective" effects from a scientific, empirical perspective.
What "truth" should this article present? will it be the subjective "truth" of the meditator, who is confident over the positive effects meditation has over their lives? or will it be the "truth" of the scientist, who is approaching the subject with empiricist methods?
The answer, as reflected from the article, is that the empiricist approach is predominantly more important. My question is: but isn't that bias toward positivism? yes, of course it is. This is the sort of problems NPOV cannot handle. A TM practitioner defines the subject differently from a scientist.
But what is the "correct" approach? answer: there is no "correct" approach. A scientist will never accept subjective experience as evidence, and a practitioner will not accept scientific research that trys to falsify their subjective experience. What you seem to be doing here is trying to synthetically "balance" Pro and Con positivist interpretations of scientific research on the subject.
As I told Larry Sanger, NPOV is "inherently wrong". You have been misled. Different viewpoints define the subject differently (even if only slightly, in some cases), there is no place for a real compromise. An attempt for a "forced" synthesis creates a result that may appeal to all sides, within the context of the debate, but may consequently distort the meaning of both sides. As I told Sanger, NPOV is process oriented, it seems to work because people are willing for a compromise, but they really shouldn't as the end result may incorrectly falsify both sides. --Anon84.x 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, but that doesn't really matter for my point (mentally switch it around if you want). My question is much more foundational. Why should science try to justify an experience that is inherently personal and subjective? Why is science an authority? why having a bias toward the positivist epistemology? why does people here seem to think science is "neutral"? (this is especially relevant to an inherently subjective experience like meditation) --Anon84.x 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A clarification: I don't see a problem with having the article written from a scientific point of view, as long as it isn't called "neutral", because it really isn't "neutral", just reflects a common bias on what people find comfortable to accept within the context of the debate. Actually that may even sacrifice the quality and truth of the article. That's what I meant by "process oriented". --Anon84.x 18:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you that focusing on objective science is a bias in itself. We only do that because, considering the amount of bullshit that can crop in when you restrict yourself to subjective experiences,  we feel that it is a lesser harm. I know there is a lot of interesting subjective experiences that will be ignored in this way, but again it is a lesser harm. Actually, we can open the door to some subjectivity, but it must be correlated with some objective observations and the whole thing must be objectively verifiable. Right now, Dr. Otis "scientific" study is only based on the subjective experience of some meditators, for which he provided some personal explanations. My position is that we can include it, but only if there is a reputable publisher for it. --Lumière 18:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forget meditation. Let's look at the whole wikipedia practice from a general perspective. What is the aim of this all? shouldn't an article reflect "truth"? what "truth" is achieved from showing a result that is comfortable for all sides on a debate? or a better question, is the truth always comfortable?. --Anon84.x 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are some very deep issues your raise Anon84x. I don't think they pertain to this article specifically, as you yourself said in your first entry for this section. Would you carry this discussion on elsewhere? Sethie 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.. where do you recommend to move? --Anon84.x 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I would love to see Sethie join us!  Just to conclude here with your questions.  Yes, an article should reflect truth. Yes, the compromise (which is not necessarily comfortable for either side) might not reflect truth. Instead, it can create a state of confusion. With regard to your last question, it depends if you mean a truth with a wide perspective or just a truth in some restricted perspective. This we can discuss elsewhere.  -Lumière 19:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant "a" truth - restricted perspective. Maybe we'll move to my talk page, or you suggest another page? --Anon84.x 19:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sethie, may we use your talk page? -Lumière 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nope, though your or Anon84x's would serve nicely. Sethie 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I copied the whole dicussion to my talk page --Anon84.x 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are you trying to achieve here?

message: Quote the RfC:
The issue is how to apply the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the case of pro or non-pro scientific studies or scientific affirmations about the transcendental meditation technique, including assertions on the scientific methods used.  See also Rfc in Religion and philosophy  19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: In the past, this quote has been taken out, and edited, changing the "Gods" to "gods." I have found a refference and cited it, which has the exact quote in it. Sethie 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maharishi personal Gods quote

message: I restored the statement about the JAMA article on TM deception that was altered by 68.9.101.244.  The JAMA article did not comment on the cost effectiveness of the Maharishi Ayur-Veda "method."  It commented on the cost effectiveness of the MAV high-priced products and services. One of the products cited -- which Deepak Chopra (who at the time was Maharishi's appointed "Lord of Immortality") was recommending to all TMers -- cost about $1000 per year or about 1/4th of the average per capita expenditure on health care for every person in the United States! Askolnick 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAMA article 

message: I say we delete it, it is currently a one line stub, and all the info in it is contained in the TM article Maybe in the future someone who will have more info about it will arrive.
Sethie 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Spiritual Gen Movement