--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TM can't *force* independent researchers to attempt > replication of the TM studies. Such researchers are > more likely to want to do a study that finds "adverse > effects." (One of them counted "boredom" as an adverse > effect, if you can imagine.) They're more interested > in debunking than taking a chance that they'd actually > confirm TM's results. I really disagree with your speculation as to the purported motivations of the independent researchers. Generally, I respect what you say because you do your homework, but here all you are doing is speculating as to what independent researchers are "more likely" to do. There has been some mild interest over the years in use of meditation techniques for treatment of various medical conditions and for potential health benefits. Back in the 1970s I knew several researchers who were not affiliated with any meditation practice who were excited by the potential of TM, biofeedback, and other "mental" techniques. The primary goals of scientists who have looked at those issues is not to confirm or debunk, but to inquire. Both potential positives and negatives need to be explored. Now there is good scientific sense to go into a research study with a hypothesis and try to disprove that hypothesis, but that has nothing to do with trying to debunk someone's results. I think if the TMO was interested in more independent research it would go far if the TMO cooperated in providing a subject pool that is not improperly selected. Obtaining subjects is a big problem for independent researchers. As far as research on adverse effects, I mentioned in my reply to Vaj that there is not enough research to draw any conclusions, but there are areas of interest for further inquiry. If I was queen of the TMO researchers, I would go out of my way to specifically study reported effects, both those people perceive as adverse and those perceived as positive. . I would follow up with new meditators, inquire about their meditations, obtain information good and bad from them, and then follow up with studies. I would do the same with experienced meditators. You mentioned "one of them counted "boredom" as an adverse effect, if you can imagine." If I was queen of the researchers, I would pay attention if people mentioned boredom as it might correlate with people dropping the practice. > > And do you really think independent researchers know > enough about TM to say whether their subjects are > practicing it as instructed? > How can any researcher really know? They can't get in the meditators' heads and if the researchers try they will poison the research. Use a large enough subject pool who have been taught to meditate and let them meditate. If we are going to discount independent research on the grounds that the researchers can't evaluate the process then we have a big problem.
