well, then, I'd like an --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Presumably you've read the thing and know what > their > > criteria were for rejecting the ones they did > reject. > > They've got a whole list and they state their > reasons > > briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own > > procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these > > things, why not just cite the studies? > > Angela, Vaj has apparently managed to confuse you > thoroughly with his flimflam. > > The only issue here is that there is two decades' > worth of TM research that the Buddhist authors of > this so-called study completely ignored. Instead, > they examined the *first* decade of TM research, > when the studies were much cruder and more > exploratory. The TM researchers got better at > doing such research as they went along. > > If you're going to evaluate a body of research to > see whether certain claims hold water, you look > at the best and most recent studies, not the oldest > ones. > > It's entirely possible that if these authors had > looked at the more recent TM research, they'd have > been equally as critical of it as of the older > research--but we have no way of knowing that, > because they didn't examine it. > > It's not necessary to know their evaluation criteria > or the quality of the later studies vis-a-vis those > criteria; that's *your* red herring. I never claimed > to be knowledgeable enough to do that, but it's > irrelevant anyway. > > > >
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
