On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- 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,
Another red herring. It wasn't written by "Buddhist meditators" in
was written by Neuroscientists, one of which has studied Hindu,
Buddhist and transcendental meditation. In other words, he's an
expert in meditation research, including TM!
whereas meditation research done by TMers is automatically suspect,
because, well, TM is a religion, while Buddhism isn't...
No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data
and exaggerated claims, so it's only natural to be suspicious if
you're a scientist (if you're not, you might not even notice). They
lost credibility decades ago. Not to mention the natural bias present
when researchers promoting a product try to push their own "research".
