--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> 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! >
He wrote a few studies on TM 30 years ago, and stopped publishing on meditation until 2004. That's, interestingly enough, the time-frame (1980s and 1990s) when TM research started being more rigorous--after MIU got accredited. > > 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". > Well, Davidson is often represented as the head of the Dali Lama's team to research (validate) Buddhist meditation. BUt this is somehow different than "pushing" Buddhist meditation? Lawson
