--- 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. 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. >
Er, but not in a survey of research, where there is a 20 year gap... > 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. Really after > that was proven > and replicated repeatedly, there wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer > bogus > research, but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these leading > researchers > are missing anything at all worth mentioning. 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. > But, replications of "no effect" studies are a dime a dozen. The smaller the study, the more likely it is to find "no effect," so in fact, "no effect" studies are CHEAPER to do then studies that have a decent chance of finding an effect. It's called "statistical power." Lawson
