tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post627474213567047407..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Challenge to atheists, any atheistd out thereJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89145787731588665702016-06-06T03:21:45.927-07:002016-06-06T03:21:45.927-07:00I can't put a study in a text box. just buy tw...I can't put a study in a text box. just buy two books .Mine and Hood's <br /><br />Hood and Spilka Religious experience: empirical approachJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83732613614134693432016-06-04T09:08:35.656-07:002016-06-04T09:08:35.656-07:00OK, Joe. I told you, I'm not going out to buy...OK, Joe. I told you, I'm not going out to buy a hundred books. I told you I would like to see something online that would corroborate what you claim. I've seen nothing.<br /><br />Why don't you help me put a little. You can provide a few directly quoted passages from these sources that show how the M scale is used to give us an empirical understanding of the phenomenological experience of mysticism. Not necessarily a full explanation, but just enough to prove that it's what that source is talking about, and that there's some real science behind your claims. Or how about the epistemological justification for God-belief that we supposedly get from this. Which of these sources cover that, and exactly what does it say on the matter?<br /><br />Your list includes crap like this:<br /><i>Ring, K. & Rosing, C.J. (1990). The Omega project: A psychological survey of persons reporting abductions and other UFO encounters. Journal of UFO Studies, 2, 59-98.</i><br />Are you serious?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13010584102940612452016-06-03T21:03:21.944-07:002016-06-03T21:03:21.944-07:00reqd the whole list<a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-list-of-religoius-experience-studies.html" rel="nofollow"><b>reqd the whole list</b></a><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-9625043548408588632016-06-03T21:01:22.386-07:002016-06-03T21:01:22.386-07:00Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbe...Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (in press). Higher stages of consciousness beyond formal operations: The Vedic psychology of human development. In C.N. Alexander and E.J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Adult growth beyond formal operations, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.<br /><br />Allman, L.S., Dela, R.O., Elins, D.N., & Weathers, R.S. (1992). Psychotherapists attitude towards mystical experiences. Psychotherapy, 29, 564-569<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Savage, C., Fadiman, J., Mogar, R. & Allen, M. (1966). “The effects of psychedelic therapy on values, personality, and behaviour”. International Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 2, 241-254.<br /><br />Anson, O., Antonovskay, A., & Sagy. (1990). “Religiosity and well-being among retirees: A question of causality”. Behaviour, Health & Aging, 1, 85-87.<br /><br />Armstrong Hickey, D. (June, 1988). A psychological and self-report study of lucid dreams in school age children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Dreams, Santa Cruz, CA.<br />Armstrong, T. (1984). Transpersonal experience in childhood. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 207-230.<br /><br /><br /><br />Atchley, R.C. (1997). “The subjective importance and being religious and its effects on health and morale 14 years later”. Journal of Aging Studies, 11, 131-141.<br /><br />Ball, R.A & Goodyear, R.K. (1991). “Self-reported professional practices of Christian psychotherapists”. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 10, 144-153.<br /><br />Balodhi, J.P., Chowdhary, J.R. (1986). “Psychiatric concepts in Atharva Veda: A review”. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 63-68.<br /><br />Banquet, J.P., & Sailhan, M. (1976). Quantified EEG spectral analysis of sleep and Transcendental Meditation. In D.W. Orme-Johnson & J.T. Farrow (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers, Vol. 1 (p. 182-186). West Germany: MERU Press.<br /><br />Becker, M. & Herter, G. (1973). Effect of meditation upon SREM. Sleep Research, 2, 90.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Bergin, A.E. (1980). Psychotherapy and religious values. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 95-105.<br /><br />Bergin, A.E. (1983). “Religiosity and mental health: A critical reevaluation and meta analysis”. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 170-184.<br /><br />Bergin, A.E. (1991). “Values and Religious issues in Psychotherapy and mental health”. American Psychologist, 46, 394-403.<br /><br />Bergin, A.E. & Payne, I.R. (1993). “Proposed agenda for a spiritual strategy in personality and psychotherapy”, in E.L. Wothington, Jr. (Ed.). Psychotherapy and Religious Values, (pp. 243-260). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.<br /><br />Bhagawad Gita. (1905). Translation by Besant, A. & Das, B. London and Benares: Theological Publishing Society.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4792340281348958342016-06-03T21:00:54.027-07:002016-06-03T21:00:54.027-07:00Every time I ask you to show me something, all you...Every time I ask you to show me something, all you do is point to a lot of crap about spirituality in general. Most of those studies aren't even about mystical experiences, let alone the M scale.<br /><br /><b>you don't know that,. you have not read a one of then you are full of sht. yo8u have not even looked at the no way you think if you have even half a brain.</b><br /><br />here are a bunch of them<br /><br />References<br /><br />Adams, N. (1995). Spirituality, science and therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 16 (4), 201-208.<br /><br /><br /><b>you saw that title and said 'that's nota out mysticism i's about spirituality" that takes real sptidi8tyl because spirituality is a general category that might housie mystical experience. you have no valid reason to doubt it you arte desperate and cltchimg at straw.</b><br /><br />Alexander, C. (1978). A literature review of the individual differences approach to <b>mystical states of consciousness</b> and a proposed alternative perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Cambridge, MA.<br /><br /><b>now that can't be about mystical experiencer because it say is mystical states hu duh.In the books I talk about specific studies and what they say. buy the book!</b><br /><br />Alexander, C. (1982). Ego development, personality and behavioral change in inmates practicing the <b>Transcendental Meditation technique</b> or participating in other programs: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.<br />Alexander, C., Boyer, R. & Orme-Johnson, D. (1985). Distinguishing between transcendental consciousness and lucidity. Lucidity Letter, 4(2), 68-85.<br /><br /><b>TM often known to produce mystical experience.</b><br /><br />Alexander, C.N., Chandler, K. & Boyer, R.W. (in press).<b> Experience and understanding of pure consciousness</b> in the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In Gackenbach, J.I. & Hunt, H. (Eds.). Higher states of consciousness: Theoretical and experimental perspectives, N.Y.: Plenum. 1990<br /><br /><b>pure consciousness is a synonym for mystical experience.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36506527484348761152016-06-03T09:07:28.322-07:002016-06-03T09:07:28.322-07:00Joe, you don't listen to a word I say, do you?...Joe, you don't listen to a word I say, do you? There aren't 100 studies on the M scale, are there? <br /><br />Every time I ask you to show me something, all you do is point to a lot of crap about spirituality in general. Most of those studies aren't even about mystical experiences, let alone the M scale. I told you, I never denied that people have studied spirituality. But you make claims about how empirical evidence shows that God-belief is warranted, and you say that there are hundreds of studies that show it. These studies show no such thing. Most of them are about psychological factors (associated with spirituality) that correlate with health and well-being. They don't even show causality, but simply correlations, for the most part. <br /><br />All that's fine, but it doesn't help to make the case for your claims. If you want me or anyone else to believe what you claim, you need to show some convincing evidence for it, and you haven't done that. Saying there are hundreds of empirical studies that support it, without being able to show me anything that actually does that, only leads me to conclude that you're slinging hot air. As someone who appreciates the value of scientific investigation, I want to see the evidence. As far as I can tell, you don't have any.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80839112154403052222016-06-02T21:21:52.284-07:002016-06-02T21:21:52.284-07:00"- I don't think there are 100 studies on..."- I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis."<br /><br />you deny saying that?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42572459969727643352016-06-02T21:18:27.256-07:002016-06-02T21:18:27.256-07:00so you now deny that every said my 100 studies wer...so you now deny that every said my 100 studies weren't real studies?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72512013600026710872016-06-02T17:02:56.513-07:002016-06-02T17:02:56.513-07:00So you are daft.
I told you what I was looking fo...So you are daft.<br /><br />I told you what I was looking for. I told you that you were misrepresenting my words. I told you not to put your own words in my mouth. And there you go again. You have again put quotes on words that you attribute to me that I never said. This is bullshit. You don't understand simple, plain English. It's no wonder you keep citing articles that don't say what you think they do.<br /><br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36008818511619208682016-06-02T16:31:09.520-07:002016-06-02T16:31:09.520-07:00here isan example of you saying something totally ...<b>here isan example of you saying something totally provocative, insulting nd factually wrong.</b><br /><br />Yes, you can. Science does not support any such bullshit. The people you cite are not mainstream scientists. They have bizarre theories that are rejected by most scientists. If you google M scale, most of what comes up is the stuff you've written about it. That just shows how narrow the support for this stuff is. Why don't you ever cite REAL science in your articles, instead of this left-field religious fundie crap? (And please don't try to tell me that the guys who do this, like Hood, are not religious.)<br /><br /><b>I documented several sources that Hood is valued and his work is accepted and M scales is widely used.<br /><br />when I said you said you could not fid anything about it, /the statement above sets the tone so when you say "nothing about it;: it means to me there are not studies, you actually did accurse me of passing off references as studies, so clearly you did try to imply that there are no studies,<br /><br />having proved there are you now back peddel ,try to spin it like you just mean you want an actual study to real which I'k sire you do you said both.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49186995572090135802016-06-02T16:23:18.132-07:002016-06-02T16:23:18.132-07:00You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't...You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't say. You even put words in quotes attributed to me: you did say exactly that "Can't find anything on it." But I never said that.<br /><br /><b>that is a lie because said exactly that.</b><br /><br /><br /> Please feel free to quote me on what I say, but you have no right to put your own words in my mouth. Furthermore, I told you repeatedly that you are misrepresenting what I said, and you keep lying about it. You even came over to my blog and repeated your lies there (completely off-topic, I might add).<br /><br /><br /><b>that's total bull shit, you change what you say, you probably don't realize how it sounds.so you don't recognize my paraphrasing,</b><br /><br /> What I've been trying to tell you all this time is that I have been unable to find something more than links to books and abstracts of papers - I'm looking for something I can read online without spending my money to get it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>that one thing by merchant and that other guy, there one you say is an abstract, the whole study is there, you have to pay to read it. I don't have the money to pay for you. That's the way it is with most studies. You are just going to have to sigh up with Jstor on a trail basis they wet you look at a couple of articles that way..</b><br /><br /><br /> My goal is to understand what you have been talking about. And you turn that into a claim that such material doesn't exist. But I never said that. Why don't you listen? Are you daft? <br /> 8:15 AM <br /><br /><b>ok I am doing my bet to help you</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68267783034809013482016-06-02T16:19:59.720-07:002016-06-02T16:19:59.720-07:00So what is this discussion about?
In your OP, you...So what is this discussion about?<br /><br />In your OP, you introduced two different topics for discussion. First, the notion that mystical experiences provide epistemic warrant for belief in God. Second, that mystical experiences have positive effects. Neither of these addresses the issue of whether religion is a good thing, so I don't know why you're trying to change the subject now.<br /><br /><b>positive effects are obviously a good thing. If not thn nothing is."Positive" m means good. The list in the op of results includes all kinds of good stuff like being a better person being more confidant self assured getting off drugs and so on. </b><br /><br /><br />Central to your ideas about mystical experiences is the claim that they are empirically identifiable and measurable, and that they imply the reality of God. In support of that you introduced the discussion of the M scale. That happened in your very first comment. I have followed up on your claims about the M scale by asking questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer. And now, you're telling me that we are losing sight of the debate and trying to change the topic.<br /><br />I've answered every question you asked. I alluded to studies I've linked to studies I've e given list of studies and I've linked to papers where I list the studies and explain about them and I linked to an article by a psychologist explaining about the studies. Mohan. I can't put the whole study kin the text box.<br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59791069137844535602016-06-02T08:15:27.274-07:002016-06-02T08:15:27.274-07:00So what is this discussion about?
In your OP, you...So what is this discussion about?<br /><br />In your OP, you introduced two different topics for discussion. First, the notion that mystical experiences provide epistemic warrant for belief in God. Second, that mystical experiences have positive effects. Neither of these addresses the issue of whether religion is a good thing, so I don't know why you're trying to change the subject now.<br /><br />Central to your ideas about mystical experiences is the claim that they are empirically identifiable and measurable, and that they imply the reality of God. In support of that you introduced the discussion of the M scale. That happened in your very first comment. I have followed up on your claims about the M scale by asking questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer. And now, you're telling me that we are losing sight of the debate and trying to change the topic.<br /><br />You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't say. You even put words in quotes attributed to me: <i>you did say exactly that "Can't find anything on it."</i> But I never said that. Please feel free to quote me on what I say, but you have no right to put your own words in my mouth. Furthermore, I told you repeatedly that you are misrepresenting what I said, and you keep lying about it. You even came over to my blog and repeated your lies there (completely off-topic, I might add). What I've been trying to tell you all this time is that I have been unable to find something more than links to books and abstracts of papers - I'm looking for something I can read online without spending my money to get it. My goal is to understand what you have been talking about. And you turn that into a claim that such material doesn't exist. But I never said that. Why don't you listen? Are you daft?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72484462736443660342016-06-01T21:23:44.800-07:002016-06-01T21:23:44.800-07:00we are losing sight of the point of the debate. tw...we are losing sight of the point of the debate. two fold:<br /><br />I. religion is good thing. It's not evil it's not something to avoid or outgrow. it makes your life better in dramatic ways and it' a positive force. That doesn't mean any particular church is good but in general religion is positive.<br /><br />I.then I have two God arguments, that is argument that belief in God is rationally warranted.<br /><br />(1) we can trust this type of religious experience (Stace's mystical) because it conforms to the criteria we use to determine reality.<br /><br />(2) Religious symbols and ideas are cultural they are not genetic. thus the universality of experience among those who have mystical experience implies that there is an objective reality they are experiencing.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33740017433891200962016-06-01T20:31:27.992-07:002016-06-01T20:31:27.992-07:00I still don't have answers to the questions I ...I still don't have answers to the questions I have. <br /><br /><b>I've answered everything</b><br /><br />And your response is that I just don't want to read the material, or that I don't understand science. But you haven't shown me anything that gives the kind of information I would like to see.<br /><br /><b>if the answer is on a link then 'read the link" is an answer. I also tell you what the answer is. now instead of whining like this you could be asking questions.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Your latest link is more of the same. Yes, I read it. It summarizes some studies relating to spirituality and its correlation to well-being. OK, great. How does that relate to your own thesis? It never even mentions the M scale. I don't see how you think this answers my questions. It doesn't. <br /><br /><b>let's think about it real careful now, since I told you the debate was about religion is a good thing and enhances well being that makes the article pretty central to the debate doesn't it? since you made the claim that you bet there are no studies I'm just listing references then article proves there are studies and you JUST ADMIOTTTED IT!!!1</b><br /><br /><br /><br />There was one thing I noted about it, though. It talks about how spirituality has been neglected in science, and that there may now be some awakening of this field. (The paper appears to be about 18 years old.) But none of that discussion says anything at all about what you claimed to be "widely used". If it's so widely used, why doesn't it merit a single mention in this paper that gives an overview of what's going on in the field?<br /><br /><br /><b>that's the kind of specific I do go into in detail in the book. Several of the studies he mentioned use the M scale. Not all the studies use it and that's ok because it means we are getting a parallax view. they still agree in their conclusions. Mohan is not a methodology guy he doesn't go that much into detail about the methodologies so not strnage that he doesn[t nention the M scale.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-338611938507011972016-06-01T20:21:16.743-07:002016-06-01T20:21:16.743-07:00Why don't you listen? I never said there were ...Why don't you listen? I never said there were no studies about spirituality. I never said there were no studies relating to your M scale. I asked you for some information that would help me understand your arguments better. <br /><br /><b>That's really changing your tune because you did say exactly that "Can't find anything on it."</b><br /><br /><br /><br />You say your article provides all the answers, but it doesn't answer my questions. Then you start talking about all these studies that prove whatever your argument is. Fine. I read your article. I read your links. <br /><br /><b>Nope never said that. I've always been very specific about what studies say. I said the Mohan article discusses several of the studies since you questioned that studies even exit. you know you did, it's right there a couple of posts back everyone can see it.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42169150760840578952016-06-01T14:55:46.106-07:002016-06-01T14:55:46.106-07:00Joe,
Why don't you listen? I never said ther...Joe,<br /><br />Why don't you listen? I never said there were no studies about spirituality. I never said there were no studies relating to your M scale. I asked you for some information that would help me understand your arguments better. You say your article provides all the answers, but it doesn't answer my questions. Then you start talking about all these studies that prove whatever your argument is. Fine. I read your article. I read your links. I still don't have answers to the questions I have. And your response is that I just don't want to read the material, or that I don't understand science. But you haven't shown me anything that gives the kind of information I would like to see.<br /><br />Your latest link is more of the same. Yes, I read it. It summarizes some studies relating to spirituality and its correlation to well-being. OK, great. How does that relate to your own thesis? It never even mentions the M scale. I don't see how you think this answers my questions. It doesn't. <br /><br />There was one thing I noted about it, though. It talks about how spirituality has been neglected in science, and that there may now be some awakening of this field. (The paper appears to be about 18 years old.) But none of that discussion says anything at all about what you claimed to be "widely used". If it's so widely used, why doesn't it merit a single mention in this paper that gives an overview of what's going on in the field?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13809662081461176902016-06-01T13:26:20.785-07:002016-06-01T13:26:20.785-07:00read the article before you say anything elseread the article before you say anything elseJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-15336591628033097332016-06-01T12:51:03.312-07:002016-06-01T12:51:03.312-07:00I don't think there are 100 studies on this. A... I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis.<br /><br /><br /><b>you have such respect for science that you can't even look at the evidence it's so unthinkable to you that some evidence might really disprove your view. you can't bring yourself to examine it. O yea you really have such a great love of learning and thinking! you can't even risk knowing you might be wrong.<br /><br />Here is an article, it's not a study it's an article but it explains about several of the studies and it proves they eixst and that they are good studies.</b><br /><br /><br />Krishna K. Mohan, “Spirituality and Wellbeing: an Overview.” An Article based upon a Presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry India 4-7 January 2001, published in hard copy, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation. Pondicherry: SAICE.On line copy website of the India Psychology Institute. Site visited 9/3/12. URL:http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php Accessed 2/7/2016<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php" rel="nofollow"><b>http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php </b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8413490703100085402016-06-01T08:53:50.146-07:002016-06-01T08:53:50.146-07:00One study says "f2 factor analysis" you ...<br /><i>One study says "f2 factor analysis" you don'/t even see that as about the M scale but it is. The M scale is the factor analysis, or the out of date version is. So you are not eve willing to investigate enough to see how wrong you fare.</i><br />- No. It's just an abstract, and there's nothing for me to read so that I can understand it. That's what I told you. Or could it be the case that you wrote your whole book on the basis of a group of abstracts, without understanding the actual papers? Because honestly, I have seen no evidence that YOU understand any of this. You can't explain how it works. You can't give me any details so that I can get a better understanding of it. All I see from you is jacket-cover praises of Hood and his work, along with a few abstracts for studies of dubious relevance (which you can't even explain).<br /><br /><i>Can't you follow as simple sentence? you said there was nothing about it except my stuff. so I', showing you how stupid that is,. here is a thing about it. it does say widely used and most effective. If they found a problem it doesn't say it's a piece of shit.</i><br />- You don't understand what I'm telling you. All you did was find something on the internet that has a sentence claiming the M scale is widely used. But that article was a abstract for an article that has nothing to do with your thesis, as far as I can tell. So you spent the whole day searching the internet for sentences like that, when what I want to know is what does it do, how does it do it, and how does it fit into mainstream science? You completely ignore the questions I have, because (as I'm increasingly convinced) you have no answers to them.<br /><br /><i>if actually read the stuff I linked to you would know the context. you know absolutory nothing about this topic because you refuse to read anything</i><br />- I read it. It was just an abstract. I've asked you over and over to show mw something more than that, so I can understand it better.<br /><br /><i>look you don't shit from shinola about academic publishing </i><br />- I read a whole interview of Ammons. He revealed a lot about his publication business, including how much he charges per page. I would suggest that you don't know the difference between mainstream and "alternative" science publications.<br /><br /><i>you didn't look at the link Donald.</i><br />- I don't know about Donald, but I certainly looked. Not only that, but I looked at everything that came up in the first page of the search. That's why I can say that there were only two studies. But you think it's a whole lot more than that, because YOU didn't bother looking.<br /><br /><i>I put up a link with 100 studies that I use in my book ,he didn't say anything. he did't read it.</i><br />- I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78133330865695306232016-06-01T08:11:40.221-07:002016-06-01T08:11:40.221-07:00Joe,
you know as lot facts of science but science...Joe,<br /><br /><i>you know as lot facts of science but science is not just a pile of facts. It's method and philosophy of method. Never underestimate your opponent. you are myopic because y0u assume that guys thinks stuff I don't like so he must be dumb.</i><br />- You're wrong about me. You see, I don't go around touting my academic credentials the way you and many others do, just to impress people. But by the time I got my BS, I'll wager I knew more about science than you will ever know. And it's pretty easy to tell when people are pretending, or when they're just plain full of shit. Now I'm not saying Hood's work is of no value. I am saying it is not mainstream. It's not what you make it out to be. And it's definitely not the final word in understanding religious experiences. <br /><br /><i>that is clearly not true. you would have learned all the stuff you asked bout if you had read the fist article I linked to when I said to you and Pixie "gentleman the long article."</i><br />- I read what you wrote. There are many questions unanswered. The problem is that you describe it in a qualitative way, but you don't explain how it works. You make claims like "supernature manifests itself in the natural realm through brain chemistry". This is not based on ANY scientific information that I can discern, other than your mysterious M scale. Your six "tie-breakers" are nothing more than interpretations of the experience, based on beliefs already held.<br /><br /><i>why would you think it would magically be there to link to just because you want to see it? I did look. show me the instrument used by the Borg study. Why can't you show it what are you hiding? Besides I've been thought the same stupid thing with atheists on CARM for year. you think you are going to find some flaw in it. you wont, you don't have the expertise to criticize it. I know you are going say I</i><br />- I just want to understand it better. For one thing, I don't see how people answering a survey could give the researcher any true understanding of the subjective phenomenological experience. This is the same issue that undergirds the whole "hard problem of consciousness". It's our inability to objectively grasp what is inherently subjective in our conscious experience.<br /><br /><i>the very first sentence says he's a major figure. It does not say the opposite of "most agree" it says contemporary shrinks don't see religion as a bad thing that is n a sense agreement with Hood's poit. It sure as hell does not say thie opposite that would be that none of them like it. you think this next statement refers to Hood, it does not.</i><br />- You think that paragraph says most psychologists agree with Hood. It does not. What it says is that there is a lot of disagreement. Nowhere does it say that "most psychologists agree" with Hood, or anyone else.<br /><br /><i>you are not willing to lean I don't have time to waste on your idiocy.</i><br />- And if you are not willing to correct your own bad typing, why should I spend the time trying to figure out what you're saying? I did a little analysis of my own. I really don't know how much of this is attributable to dyslexia, but I can see clearly that much of it is just what we call "fat fingers". Like when you want to type 's' and you end up hitting the 'd' key. Or sometimes "d' and 's' together. I do that all the time, and I don't always correct it, but I do correct the majority of typing errors I make.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58517686429598346152016-06-01T01:42:40.901-07:002016-06-01T01:42:40.901-07:00here's one of the first things I linked to. of...here's one of the first things I linked to. of course he didn't even try to read it. If he had he would have found answers to everything he's asked.<br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-m-sacle-and-universal-nature-of.html" rel="nofollow"><b>HERE</b></a><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67886601650269531342016-06-01T01:33:04.811-07:002016-06-01T01:33:04.811-07:00I linked to this way up there back in the gaining,...I linked to this way up there back in the gaining,.vhe didn't look because he doesn't want to know. it's about half the studies in my book about 100 of them these studies are not all om the M scale but they show the value of religious experience in some way,.<br /><br /><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-list-of-religoius-experience-studies.html" rel="nofollow"><b>List of studies</b></a><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8520726670530431752016-06-01T01:27:00.669-07:002016-06-01T01:27:00.669-07:00I have quoted way more than enough to how the M sc...I have quoted way more than enough to how the M scale works and the most corroborated scale of it's kind. He said there's nothing on it. so I linked a whole page and he says it's just tgw3o studies. here's the page.<br /><br /><br /><br />Hood Mysticism Scale Questions Mysticism and Religion <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Hood Mysticism Scale: does the presence of a neutral ...<br /><br />www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11351868<br /><br />1. Psychol Rep. 2001 Apr;88(2):335-8. The Hood Mysticism Scale: does the presence of a neutral response-item affect response style. Mercer C(1), Durham TW.<br /><br /><br />www.jstor.org<br /><br />www.jstor.org/stable/1387407<br /><br />Title: The Structure of Hood's Mysticism Scale: A Factor-Analytic Study Created Date: 20160330213258Z<br /><br /><br />Theories, Concepts, and Measurements | Mysticism Scale<br /><br />wiki.thearda.com/tcm/measures/mysticism<br /><br />Hood (1975) developed a series of questions based on Stace (1960) that were designed to tap into experiences perceived as transcending cultural and temporal ...<br /><br /><br />www.jstor.org<br /><br />www.jstor.org/stable/1387178<br /><br />Title: Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A Factor-Analytic Replication Created Date: 20160330004148Z<br /><br /><br />Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social ...<br /><br />hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/mysticism.htm<br /><br />Encyclopedia of Religion and Society ... Surveys of Mystical Experience. Hood's ... His Mysticism Scale, Research Form D ...<br /><br /><br />Hood Mysticism Scale: Good Friday Experiment, Religion ...<br /><br />www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qeLfh7E9mA<br /><br />Hood Mysticism Scale: Good Friday Experiment, Religion, and the Mystical Experience from Psilocybin ... Ralph Hood, PhD Talks About His Mysticism Scale…<br /><br /><br />THE HOOD MYSTICISM SCALE: DOES THE PRESENCE OF A NEUTRAL ...<br /><br />www.amsciepub.com/…dfplus/10.2466/pr0.2001.88.2.335<br /><br />HOOD MYSTICISM SCALE METHOD Participants included 48 students who were enrolled in one of two sec- tions of a senior undergraduate psychology course in Tests ...<br /><br /><br />I put up a link with 100 studies that I use in my book ,he didn't say anything. he did't read it.<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78715180201525563612016-06-01T01:21:53.556-07:002016-06-01T01:21:53.556-07:00M "scale widely used and Most effective"...M "scale widely used and Most effective" that's what this article says about it. That was 2001 so she's talking about the old 1975 two factor approach. Her criticisms re out of date but she does say most effective and widely used. The three factor version is even better.<br /><br /><br />- You say SHE. The article was written by two men. But this article is about whether it's better to allow a neutral response in the questionnaire. It has nothing to do with your position is valid, but you were searching for that phrase: <br /><br /><br /><b>Can't you follow as simple sentence? you said there was nothing about it except my stuff. so I', showing you how stupid that is,. here is a thing about it. it does say widely used and most effective. If they found a problem it doesn't say it's a piece of shit.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />"widely used and most effective". Of course, a phrase like that must be placed in context. Widely used for what? Effective for what? I looked at the journal where this appears.<br /><br /><b>if actually read the stuff I linked to you would know the context. you know absolutory nothing about this topic because you refuse to read anything</b><br /><br /> Ammons Scientific publishes non-mainstream, alternative, and speculative stuff. It's one of those pay-to-be published things, like what the ID "scientists" use. To quote Mr. Ammons: "I’m the direct outgrowth of my parents’ attitude towards science as being a wonderful but limited problem solving tool."<br /><br /><b>look you don't shit from shinola about academic publishing <br />Donald.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />another page full of studies about the M scale<br /><br />- I see two different studies here. One is the above-mentioned "does the presence of a neutral response-item affect response style". The other is "Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A Factor-Analytic Replication". Both of these are abstracts, and provide nothing substantial for me to read. One of them appears to be completely irrelevant to your thesis.<br /><br /><b>you didn't look at the link Donald.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com