--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2007, at 12:40 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 17, 2007, at 11:44 AM, authfriend wrote: > > <snip> > > > > We've been over this before. The authors were potentially > > > > *highly* biased toward Buddhist meditation techniques; > > > > they did not look at most of the more recent TM studies; > > > > and that one comment about sleep during TM that I've quoted > > > > here reveals either significant ignorance about what TM > > > > claims or the intention to mislead. > > > > > > Clearly this is incorrect since one of the best examples > > > they give is of Hindu yogis practicing Hindu meditation! > > > > Which does not present much in the way of competition > > with Buddhist meditation for the attention and acceptance > > of ordinary folks. > > > > I notice you don't deal with the points about the > > currency of the TM research they looked at, nor with > > their gross misstatements about sleep during TM. > > Unless a later study radically changes the findings of a previous > study, there is no need to reference more recent studies. From what > they list, they include papers up to as recently as just a few years > ago. > > I'm not sure what "misstatements" you're referring to
Yes, you are. I quoted it before. , but I assume > it's your confusion about the fact that TM EEG output is the same as > found in the sleep cycle. This is not at all surprising since TM's > metabolic rate change is the same as sleep. Here it is: "The initial claim that TM produces a unique state of consciousness different than sleep has been refuted by several EEG meditation studies which reported sleeplike stages during this technique with increased alpha and then theta power." As I pointed out at the time (to no response from Vaj): Of course, these findings have by no means "refuted" TM's claim to produce a unique state of consciousness. TM has never claimed that this unique state is found continuously throughout the meditation period; it occurs sporadically for varying lengths of time. (Plus which, as I recall, at least one of these studies was performed under distinctly unfavorable conditions; the subjects were college students, and the tests were done during a period of the year when the students would be expected to be more tired than usual--I think it may have been during an exam period at the end of the semester, but I can't remember the exact details. In any case, periods of drowsiness or sleep during TM are not at all uncommon and are considered perfectly normal.) This is such an obvious straw man that it's hard to believe it was inadvertent; and if it was, it demonstrates significant ignorance of what TM's claims actually *are*. It's not the only such problem with this study, but it's so egregious that it suggests the researchers really did not do their homework. > > > > > The studies were on standard fare Maharishi Vedic science > > > > > techniques. The results of this research is then used to uphold > > > > > claims in Vedic Science. > > > > > > > > However, bad studies don't discredit Vedic Science > > > > per se, only the studies themselves. > > > > > > If that was the case one would think the TMO would STOP > > > using their "research" to back claims in their "Vedic > > > Science" programs. But this is clearly NOT the case! > > > > Obviously, because they don't think the studies are > > bad. > > Why preach to the choir, huh? Non sequitur. Obviously they don't just preach to the choir. > > > > > > Second, you fail to mention that > > > > > > the article you refer to found that *all* the > > > > > > available research on meditation was of poor quality, > > > > > > not just that on TM. > > > > > > > > > > Not all, just the ones included in the research on > > > > > health claims and meditation. > > > > > > > > All the hundreds of studies they evaluated. Obviously > > > > they can't find that research they haven't evaluated > > > > is of poor quality. Nice attempt at misdirection, > > > > though. > > > > > > It's not misdirection, it's in Appendix E, why and which > > > studies were excluded. > > > > Says Vaj, attempting to obscure his first attempt at > > misdirection with another one. > > No, just to emphasize (once again) that your claim that > "*all* the available research on meditation was of poor > quality, not just that on TM." is in error. Except that it does nothing of the kind, of course. As I said, it's just a clumsy attempt at misdirection from the point I was making. <snip> > > > > as we are already starting to now get > > > > > studies which flat out state that TM research is biased (from > > > > > the Journal of Hypertension on TM blood pressure claims): > > > > > > > > Actually, what you go on to quote does *not* "flat out > > > > state" that TM research is baised. It says the studies > > > > they looked at were *potentially* biased (and we'd > > > > need to look at the authors' affiliations to see whether > > > > they were "potentially biased" as well, like the authors > > > > of the Handbook chapter). > > > > > > And of course no bias was ever shown from the > > > neuroscientists of The Cambridge Handbook of > > > Consciousness. > > > > Non sequitur. You misstated what the authors said. > > > > > It's just something you repeat as if you say it > > > enough times, someone will actually believe > > > this lie and attempt at misinformation. In other > > > words: pure desperation. > > > > Hilarious. I referred to "potential bias" on their > > part, just as the other authors used that term with > > regard to the TM studies. Are they desperate too? > > I don't think so....just objective. Vaj falling into deep incoherence now, as he always does when he encounters a strong challenge. > > You, on the other hand, made the false claim that > > these authors said "flat out" that TM research is > > biased. > > They did not use those words You falsely attributed those words to the authors, Vaj. They said the TM research was "POTENTIALLY biased." , they used the Jadad scale. You're being > over literal again Judy. No, you mispresented what they said, quite deliberately. > > Who is it who is desperate, again? > > Certainly not me. The evidence against the legitimacy > of most TM research is already well on the way to > being established fact. You are far more biased against TM research than I am for it. And you get desperate when I document this fact.
