--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> > >> 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*. > > > As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of the art > paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears as BS Judy. In > no decently written papers of this kind have I seen wanton referral to > research that is not directly linked to something included in the > paper. And, true to APA form, these writers refer to each and every > point they are making by a parenthetical citation. All others--in > "other" different meditation studies--need not be included as they are > quite able to cover all their assertions with what they are currently > using. It makes no sense whatsoever to include studies for the sake of > writing their names as references. And of course such strawman > thinking does also not support your rather odd claim that 'because TM > studies are omitted, they haven't read them'. They had all the > citations needed. > > Of course if the actual purpose of the paper was to examine all TM > studies, then they could be in error. But that is clearly not the case > with this paper. >
But, Vaj, they only looked at studies published in the 70's through 1986 and based their conclusions about TM on those studies. They didn't lok at anything newer save one 2004 study which they dismissed as not containing any physiological evidence for its conclusions, which is certainly true, because the abstract clearly identified it as a psychological study--a followup on an earlier physiological study on the same group of people. Lawson
