--- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > For the majority of people, what is so rapid about TM > > > > > other than as a belief system? > > > > > > > > Dunno. You find research on other meditation techniques of > > > > people reporting 24/7 witnessing for years at a time, or > > > > breath suspension associated with reports of samadhi. > > > > > > Your "research" is done by TBs within the org. and published by > > > its own journals > > > > Er, no, it's mostly published in independent journals, > > many of them peer-reviewed. > > I was referring specifically to research on witnessing and breath > suspension which I doubt was published in a peer reviewed journal.
I'm not sure it wasn't, but Lawson may know one way or the other. > In terms of tm research in general in the past 20 yrs, I estimated a > couple yrs ago that about 95% was done by TMO insiders and about 80% > published in TMO publications or just delivered as an address at > some conference, which the TMO incorrectly refers to as published. I'm quite sure your estimates of where studies were published are substantially incorrect. For one thing, there *is* only one regular TMO publication, Modern Science and Vedic Science, and it's only published a couple of times a year (I'm not even sure it's still published). Nor does it publish more than an occasional TM research paper; usually it's more theoretical papers of various sorts, often not on anything even remotely scientific. The other TMO publications were the Collected Papers series, but the last one (there were five volumes) appeared in 1990. The first volume did contain papers that had been published nowhere else, but I'm pretty sure all the papers in the rest of the series had been published elsewhere (not by any means all in high- quality journals, however). Don't be misled by the fact that some of the TM research reference lists give the source of many studies as the Collected Papers. If you check, you'll find those are reprints of studies that were originally published elsewhere, in independent journals. And again, the most recent volume of the Collected Papers was published a decade and a half ago. No TM research since then, except for *maybe* a paper or two in Modern Science and Vedic Science, has been published in a TMO publication. If you want to check out the Collected Papers volumes: http://www.tm.org/research/508_studies.html There are plenty of conference proceedings and dissertation abstracts sprinkled throughout the reference lists, but I'd guess they account for around 10 percent. By *far* the bulk of the TM research studies have been published in independent journals, many of them peer-reviewed. > I could not find any replication references to any of the > studies. Right; as I said in another post, they need independent replication. But TM can't force independent researchers to undertake it. > This estimation was done based on a quick look at a TMO website > with a long list of studies. I think you might want to take a longer look sometime. That you cite "TMO publications" when there are actually only the two I mentioned, which couldn't be where many of the studies were published for the reasons I stated, suggests to me that your examination was overhasty. > I'm not saying that some of the findings, esp physiological, aren't > real, but I think someone is very naive to not discount inside tmo > research due to the heavy marketing influence. I've heard from ex > mum professors and ex grad students of the heavy pressure put on mum > researchers to come up with positive results - basically to do the > study over and over and keep changing the statistical analysis until > you get what the university wants to hear. This is esp true with > the maharishi effect work. Well, it certainly could be--in fact I'd be surprised if some stuff hadn't occurred along these lines--but anonymous, vague rumors aren't really much to go on. (Plus which, such finagling is by no means unheard of in mainstream institutions.) Most of the TM research is in a kind of limbo until some independents attempt to replicate it. It can't be accepted as valid because of both the lack of replication and the TM affiliation of the vast majority of the researchers. On the other hand, as long as replication hasn't been attempted *and failed*, the studies can't be rejected out of hand either. There's a difference between *discounting* the research, as you advocate, and reserving judgment on it. I'd advocate the latter. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
