--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2007, at 11:40 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:58 AM, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > The ME is not a robust effect by any standard of > > > > measure. It is a PR tool of the TMO. > > > > > > And keep in mind recent researchers have pointed out that > > > the alleged mechanism behind the supposed ME--significant > > > brain coherence--was NOT in fact, significant. > > > > It's important to note that all three of these > > researchers have a heavy investment in the > > study of Buddhist meditation; and also that they > > "overlooked" more than a decade of recent TM > > research. > > > How do you know they "overlooked" it? Just because they did not > feel it was worth mentioning does not mean they did not look at > all the research. We might also want to consider that they may > have also ignored what they felt was not good science, not a good > study design, not well controlled, etc., etc.
Anything is possible. But since they haven't *told* us how they evaluated this recent research, we can't say for sure that they even looked at it. In any case, for them to draw conclusions about TM research as a whole on a specific topic, it simply isn't scientifically kosher to omit any discussion whatsoever of more than a decade of recent research. The suspicion remains--especially given their association with research on Buddhist meditation-- that they didn't include it because its results did not support their conclusions. It's up to them to have included material in their study to address this kind of suspicion. They did not. > I thought they covered some very important key points. They're "key" and "important" *only if* more recent research doesn't have results that would invalidate these points. > What do you feel, if for the sake of being concise > we don't want to overburden the paper with every > single example, should be mentioned that was not? > Which 3 or 4 significant other findings would you > include comment on? I'm not that familiar with the research, and unfortunately you and others succeeded in driving Lawson, who is familiar with it, off the forum (quite conveniently, I might add). > Nonetheless, the facts on EEG coherence being insignificant still > stand. No, Vaj, they do *not* stand when there's a decade's worth of TM research that might show much more significant facts. I think we just need to accept this Judy. Surely you'd heard > before the stories of them not finding anything on EEG and M. > insisting "keep looking" and then they noticed this very slight > finding. Then they played the minor finding for all it was worth. I've heard all kinds of "stories" about the TM research. Until I hear it from one of the researchers themselves, firsthand, I do not automatically assume these stories are factual. Did your researchers discuss this particular "minor finding" and show that it was indeed insignificant? > Now it's accepted dogma. > > But science should not be dogma. I don't care about the "dogma" aspect. I'm interested in what the actual research reveals.
