--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 11:22 PM, authfriend wrote: <snip> > > 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. > > ROFLOL! Boy, did you get that backwards!
No, actually, I didn't, but thanks for asking. <snip> > > > > > > > > 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. > > No, it's called a clarification. No, it's misdirection. Read what I said to start with that you were supposedly responding to. The trend in modern and more recent > research is to produce higher quality studies because of improvement > in study design. It's an unavoidable fact that the people who have > done the most "research" have seen little improvement statistically > speaking in their studies. Non sequitur. > > > > > > 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. > > A strong challenge? ROFLOL, you're just desperate as usual. Funny, since I'm the one who's making sense, and you're the one who's incoherent. <snip> > > > > 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." > > How kind! Unfortunately the researchers did not know what many on > this list already know Nobody here "knows" whether the studies were biased. But that isn't the point. The point is that you deliberately misrepresented what the researchers said. <snip> > PS: Could you try to be more timely in your post responses. It's > amazing in all this time you weren't able to come up with anything > better than this! There's very little to "come up with" in response to your posts, Vaj; they're very nearly substance-free. I came back to this one because of the hilarious blooper John Knapp made on his blog about this study and the challenges to it, which I also posted about yesterday (to no response from you).
