From rmg3@access.digex.net  Thu Nov  5 13:18:16 1998
Received: from team2.teamnet.net (team2.teamnet.net [192.104.107.5])
	by pony-1.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA14057;
	Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:18:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from access5.digex.net (access5.digex.net [205.197.245.196])
	by team2.teamnet.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA24309
	for ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:15:38 -0600 (CDT)
Received: (from rmg3@localhost)
          by access5.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id NAA20333; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:15:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:15:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Grumbine 
Message-Id: <199811051815.NAA20333@access5.digex.net>
To: dtalbott@teleport.com, velikov@teamnet.net
Subject: Biorhythms and Grubaugh models
Status: R


  There's a connection, honest.  First on the biorhythm side.  The notion
was (it became very popular in the 1970's, though this wasn't the first
time of popularity) that you had natural cycles in your performance
and you could improve your life by taking appropriate advantage/precaution
by knowing where you were in each of the cycles.  In principle, this
was (is) a testable proposition.  And, according to the books (in its
favor) I read at the time, these tests had indeed been done.  They
filled some boxes and boxes (I believe 40 boxes) with the supporting
documentation for the tests.  Unfortunately, the ship carrying the boxes
was sunk (in World War II), so all the great documentation was lost.

  A tragic event for the support documentation.  But ... the response
of the biorhythm people was to simply assert that there _was_ such
documentation, rather than to run a new batch of experiments and build
a new batch of support.  Their failure to do so was one of the
reasons the fad died out (apparently) in the 40's-50's.  If they
really had a scientific contribution, it could have been rebuilt.
It doesn't require that nobody ever lose a data set.  

  Re. the Grubaugh-related flurry of posts that we've had, I note that
Talbott was largely talking about the history of Grubaugh's reception
in talk.origins.  Of interest to a historian, perhaps, but as Talbott's
version wasn't supported by the documentation (than you Wayne for 
pursuing that) not terribly meaningful even for that.  But here again, 
Talbott was arguing in favor of a conclusion (physical quality of 
Grubaugh's model) without bothering to actually _present_ the model.  
Rather, to talk about his memories of things.  If the model was good 
science then, it would be good science now.  Present the science and 
have done with it.

Robert Grumbine