On Nov 16, 2006, at 4:31 PM, sparaig wrote:
It's absolutely immaterial "how many", what is most important is that
there is no bias and that the researchers understand the spectrum of
meditation practice, not merely a single, isolated brand or technique
they are (in violation of a *true* null hypothesis) trying to
forward. Suffice to say I am able to access a huge number of studies
most people would never see unless they were privy to specialized
journals, so therefore I read a lot more than your average person, on
a monthly basis.
I've easily read as much as you, most likely much more.
Of course you have, Vaj. How many Buddhist meditation studies have
been published,
BTW?
Should I be counting for some reason? I'm really not that obsessed
about it to be honest.
And a good meditation technique shouldn't need hundreds of sceintific
studies. Apparently TM does, but even that isn't selling, so they
give it away for free or require donors or loans. Such inanity.
Shouldn't quality be the emphasis rather than quantity?
When someone is constantly and desperately trying to push their own
research it's generally a warning flag that something's wrong. And
most objective people familiar with the TMO already realize that.
It's also why legitimate meditation researchers would do well to
check and re-check anything these buffoons put out in their zealous
attempts to forward their agendas.
