--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak
geezerfr...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak
geezerfreak@ wrote:
snip
Before you get too carried away here kiddo,
remember back when you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
In TM research there is a prevalence of small, nearly
insignificant
results. This is ripe for
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:47 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
I really would like to see them research unstressing.
I couldn't agree more, I've always felt this would be a fascinating
opportunity to study meditation. Back when the TMSP was first
introduced would have been the opportune time, less so
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
Well, the idea and approach of the TM org is to
not mention the actual figures or not mention
them in a way makes the obviously insignificant
result seem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
In TM research there is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
who have looked at the research in question and come
to the same
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfr...@...
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two*
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
Tim Guy makes a couple of the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
styles and background are similar.
http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-
positive-study-
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
styles and background are similar.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
to Space City Skeptics, claiming that
One thing I have learned by this little exchange and others is that
apparently it is fine with the culture here to dis someone in public
based on a personal message. Okie dokie.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
[...]
Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked. I certainly meant no
insult
On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:08 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked. I certainly meant no
insult and I inquired via pm in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
[...]
Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
were
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
One thing I have learned by this little exchange and others is that
apparently it is fine with the culture here to dis someone in public
based on a personal message. Okie dokie.
Um, feeling defensive are we?
Fact is,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
to Space City Skeptics, claiming that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:08 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
were him. I am not a mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
[...]
Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the points I made about Ruth's
mistaking me
for Tim Guy, and certainly, pot, kettle, black. applies here as
far as your
defense of the Buddhist meditation studies you constantly cite, goes.
Well that's your false
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
One thing I have learned by this little exchange and others is that
apparently it is fine with the culture here to dis someone in public
based on a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@...
wrote:
snip
[I wrote:]
Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!
(Note that it was I who pointed out Vaj's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 4:34 PM, sparaig wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the points I made
about Ruth's mistaking me for Tim Guy, and
certainly, pot, kettle, black. applies here as
far as your defense of the Buddhist
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
Well, privledged email information slipping out again but its
obvious from
the fact that 20 years research was ignored that they don't have a
theoretical
framework to put it in, or are you seriously suggesting that every
On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
No point in us arguing this. We disagree as to their conclusions.
Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
that the studies they excluded from their report were either not
sufficiently rigorous or did not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
No point in us arguing this. We disagree as to their conclusions.
Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
that the studies they excluded
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
No point in us arguing this. We disagree as to their conclusions.
Apparently you can't believe that they have the background to conclude
that the studies they excluded
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 6:00 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
No point in us arguing this. We disagree as to their conclusions.
Apparently you can't believe
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section
editor of the state of the art work on Human electroencephalography,
esp. electroencephalography and meditation.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
Rather than abolish NCCAM, why not require it to have more stringent
peer review?
L
Peer review alone is not going to cut it. Instead, far more rigorous
methodologies have to be required before funding. Interestingly,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section
editor of the state of the art work on Human
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
Rather than abolish NCCAM, why not require it to have more stringent
peer review?
L
Peer review alone is not going to cut it. Instead,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the section
editor of the state of the art work on Human
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote:
I read a study recently about the more expertise a person has
in a certain area, the more likely that person will see a
pattern in their area of expertise, to the extent of seeing
patterns where there are none.
In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote:
I read a study recently about the more expertise a person has
in a certain area, the more likely that person will see a
pattern in their area of
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the
section
On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
In TM research there is a prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
results. This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none. If
the results were dramatic, then the attention of outside researchers
is attracted and usually the work
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
In TM research there is a prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
results. This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none. If
the results were dramatic, then
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
qualified man in the world to comment on
Vaj wrote: Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the
most qualified man in the world to comment on EEG, having been the
section editor of the state of the art work on Human
electroencephalography, esp. electroencephalography and meditation.
Davidson's also the man who's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:55 PM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, sparaig wrote:
Interesting because one of the researchers is probably the most
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote:
On Feb 14, 2009, at 8:06 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote:
In TM research there is a prevalence of small, nearly insignificant
results. This is ripe for seeing a pattern when there is none. If
the results were dramatic, then
43 matches
Mail list logo
