Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that do show methodologies and results they would accept for any meditation practice?
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Vaj" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj > <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Another nice review of meditation research can > be found in > > > > The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a > textbook for > > > > neuroscientists from Cambridge University. > It's section on > > > > meditation and neurosceince objectively > reviews some of the > > > > exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, > esp. the specious > > > > claim of "coherence" during TM. It turns out > what they've > > > > been touting for years now is statistically > insignificant > > > > and often seen in normal waking state! > > > > > > As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are > several > > > *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM > research > > > in this study, including that the authors didn't > bother > > > to look at the most recent *20 years* of > research on TM. > > > > And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM > research as > > recent as the year of publication. > > We've already covered this, as you know. Your > assertion > is disingenuous. > > Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. > > > And of course the study in question only lists the > studies > > they specifically refer to! This is part of what > is known > > as the APA style, common in almost all research > for > > publication. > > More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did > not > refer to those later studies *because they did not > look at them*. > > > Really since as early as the 1980's it was known > and shown--and > > replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM > claims were and > > still are fallacious. > > It was not "known and shown" in the 1980s that TM > claims > post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. > > Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any > of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they > were discussing. > > > Really after that was proven and replicated > repeatedly, there > > wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus > research > > Obviously, you can't tell whether research is > bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist > researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. > > > but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever > that these > > leading researchers are missing anything at all > worth > > mentioning. > > What an extraordinarily empty assertion. > > Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. > > > Fortunately the Alberta study does show for > > us the continuing poor quality as it does show > that TM > > research still is pretty much still just bad > marketing > > research. > > Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta > study found that *all* research on the 11 different > practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, > Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be "poor > quality." > > The point of that study was to point out that > meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined > and improved. Here's the conclusion: > > "The field of research on meditation practices and > their > therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. > The > therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot > be > established based on the current literature. Further > research needs to be directed toward the ways in > which > meditation may be defined, with specific attention > paid > to the kinds of definitions that are created. A > clear > conceptual definition of meditation is required and > operational definitions should be developed. The > lack of > high-quality evidence highlights the need for > greater care > in choosing and describing the interventions, > controls, > populations, and outcomes under study so that > research > results may be compared and the effects of > meditation > practices estimated with greater reliability and > validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of > meditation > practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the > available evidence. It is imperative that future > studies > on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, > execution, analysis, and reporting of the results." > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
