Ok, I am testing whether atheists are open minded about evidence. Ready?

Question

It started with this question. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071012212250AAk6Oxi&r=w
Read it to see the context. I am now picking a particular statement proposed by another tradition of knowledge, the Vedic tradition. "In the vicinity of those practicing advanced techniques of meditation, criminality diminishes, the economy is better, etc." (I paraphrased here.) The statement is that there is no need for further actions by these people, just their vicinity is enough. This couldn't come from within the modern science institution, but yet it is scientifically verifiable. We can test it. Here is some evidence: http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/ A lot has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

However, there is a possible dogma: No evidence can be related to another tradition of knowledge. There is also a new paradigm here: consciousness or awareness is at the basis of matter, but is it the evidence that is important or a respect of some old paradigm.

CC: There are some practical constraints because there are real people, who have family etc., and there is also a required budget, but yes this would be ideal. We did have something in that direction though. In few cases, the experiments were publicly announced in advance and we could see a correlation with the size of the groups. All other independent variables (weather, etc.) that could also influence the effects were considered. The papers were published in peer reviewed journals. The editors and the reviewers were skeptical, but they could only say that the statistical methods used were the best possible.

thirddownman: The evidence is published in scientific journals, some peer reviewed. I gave the web page where you can find all the references. What more do you need? I am not going to describe the papers here.

oozɐƃ ʇɐǝɹƃ ǝɥʇ: Wrong. The most important ones have been published in peer reviewed journals. So, you see, you don't look at the evidence. At the end, you will simply not trust the evidence because it is against your belief.

Pisces: You say "fictional", but I thought we were only considering evidence. Is it that we don't look at evidence when is "sounds fictional". Hum! Hum! Well, it is not fictional. It is reality, real peer reviewed journals, real people, simply reality. Nothing supernatural, just reality.

holyspurt: You call it supernatural. Is this your way not to look at evidence? I am not looking at supernatural. I am looking at the facts.

CC: I gave you a thumb up because, at the least, you suggested to verify it even further. Certainly, they want to do it.

novangelis: You critic without reading the papers. In the peer reviewed papers, they checked for all confounding variables that it made sense to consider. The p value was extremely significant. You forget that some the papers were published in peer reviewed journals. The reviewers knew perhaps more than you on the subject, and they were not meditators.

Marooned on Earth: Why God DNA? The published papers did not mention God. It just a field effect. I see God in there, but this is me.

brainstorm: There is no direct link with God. The link is that in this old tradition of knowledge, since modern science did not exist at the time, the laws of nature responsible for this effect were called devata or deities. In my opinion, it is just an issue of language, as simple as that. Nevertheless, the fact is that this old tradition of knowledge uses these terms, and this creates a link.

Answer 1

This is a testable hypothesis. Instead of looking at historical correlation, let's do a prospective study that is controlled and double blinded.

Teach these advanced techniques of meditation to several people. Have these people live in randomised areas with comparable crime rates, socio-economic environments, etc. and then signal some of them to practice these techniques at predetermined times, while the other group do not practice these techniques. Then, after a certain amount of time to gather data for baseline, after event, switch the groups to do a cross-over, to see if there is any effect.

Let's see the experimental evidence.

Answer 2

The experiment was not controlled. There was no alternate intervention. Could it have been distinguished from 1% basketball? The intervention itself, not the modality may have been the influence. The funding that accompanied the study may have been the influence. Extremely low p values mean nothing if you do not control for the confounders.

ADDENDUM:
Despite your assertion, they never did a control against alternate interventions, although they did take measures to see that alternate interventions did not influence the data. I know biostatistics, and none of the papers assert that meditation had a direct effect on the people in the vicinity. The studies show that the intervention works, but the reason cannot be inferred from the data. Correlation is easy to prove. Causality is extremely difficult to prove, especially in social research.

Answer 3

yes I'm ready... what's the question?


btw: correlation does not necessarily mean cause/effect

are you suggesting that science doesn't adapt itself to new evidence and only holds to original paradigms??

and are you saying all matter has consciousness??

i've read several of your questions over the past few months and you seem to be grasping at straws more and more trying to find something supernatural in nature



EDIT: I don't see references in your article. also, I clicked on one of the links at the bottom 'Effects of Yogic...' and the references weren't published (in press! since the 80s). do you really believe that??????

Believing that people's mediation can affect crime rates without any direct interaction is supernatural. you're funny.

Answer 4

Yeah...I didn't actually see any references to peer review and I'll tell you why. No control group in the three examples I looked at.

Answer 5

why would you want to repeat yourself so much?
are logical explanations and reasoning so difficult to accept?
or are you merely wishing to provoke?
perhaps you wish to make enough noise so that the rude element of Y!A come along, say something ignorant and then you can feel that your viewpoint is justified in 'absolute', when you have already received many intelligent and reasonable replies?
if evidence is your 'thing', lets have some!

Answer 6

It seems to me that you are doing a research work and you need our assistance on that. Sorry nothing comes free in this world.

Answer 7

Cut the crap and bring me some god DNA.

Answer 8

Ok, ready for some evidence here.

Answer 9

the mind is very powerful and is mistery at the same time..

Answer 10

God does not believe in atheists, therefore there are no atheists.