--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote: > > > Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had > > assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well > > established. But I came across this 2007 independent "review" which > > doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one > > cited on the programme?): > > http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf > > Surely this is just too negative? > > > Nope, it's actually an excellent review of the science used in > meditation research and just how scientific it is. >
Of course it is... > But really, much of what's touted by TM researchers was disproved way > back in the 80's. In some cases the TM researchers didn't even bother > to respond when independent researchers pointed out the errors in > their research! If anything, TMO-based meditation research is a good > example of how NOT to do meditation research! > > 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! > > This paper can be found at: > > http://www.box.net/shared/kcnprcg5fq > The fact that it is written by Buddhist meditators doesn't call into question any aspect of what it says, whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect, because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't... Lawson
