--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Response below. > > > > --- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings > provide > > > > > some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute > measures > > > > of validity. >>> > > > > > > Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in > > > physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research. > > > I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem. > > > > > ****** > > > > The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the > reduction of oxygen > > consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it > went something like this: > > > > Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their > measurements taken while > > meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely > to TM. > > > > Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes > closed reduced oxygen > > consumption by the same amount as TM. > > > > It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. "O2 consumption > twice as low as the > > deepest point of sleep" had been the "proof" of TM's profundity; > now TM was equivalent to > > sitting quietly with eyes closed. > > > > The next development was "metastudies" which showed that, according > to "global" > > measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. > The claim was the > > same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable > measurement. Now it was > > teased out of the statistics. > > > > The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months. > > > > L B S > > > > Except that Kesterson's finding was based on examining the physiology > of people inthe breath suspension state because the assumption was > that O2 consumption was driving the reduction in O2. It wasn't. That > was NOT smoothed over, and Keith Wallace's book formally acknowledges > that the early studies were flawed in that regard.
This once again speaks to the attempt at integrity despite intense bigotry on the part of TM researchers. Bigotry is ugliness. OffWorld ------------------------ 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/
