--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. >
Patiently: how many studies have you read, then? --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've easily read as much as you, most likely much more. > >>
