On Dec 12, 2007, at 12:56 AM, off_world_beings wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > What a load of self-important garbage. The only > > thing that could "destroy science" is bad science, > > done with questionable motives and even more > > questionable intent, for the purpose of making > > money or shaping public opinion. Like tobacco > > research paid for by the tobacco industry. Or > > TM research paid for by the TMO. > > > Recent research has actually shown that the vast majority of TM > "research" is not scientific or at best "bad science".>> And as I asked you before, in which respected peer-reviewed sceintific journal does this appear?
What makes you think all excellent research appears in "peer-reviewed scientific journals"? In this case the research was published by the University of Alberta as part of a request from the US National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. TM research failed miserably and from a truly scientific POV, really should not be considered "scientific". The review which looked at neuroscientific claims in meditation research was a paper accepted for the prestigious Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, the textbook for Neuroscientists studying consciousness.
Fortunately we're seeing study design improving in other meditational investigations and thus there's a widespread adoption of mindfullness meditation in hospitals and clinics worldwide.
Also recently we finally have meditators who are duplicating the first research into samadhi first done in the 1950's on yogis. TM has never been able to duplicate samadhi in the lab, but in the last decade we have examples of meditators goings into profoundly coherent forms of consciousness and who also exhibit the loss of startle reflex and insensitivity to pain that are hallmarks of true samadhi.
Your anti-science people are insane. This is like the republican science claims about evolution and naoh's ark. Santa Claus is more credible than unpublished research Vaj.
I'm not "anti-science", I'm anti-junk science or marketing research pseudoscience hailed as legitimate science.
If you were an objective observer of TM research in the first place, none of this would be a surprise. If anything TM research was infamous for the fact that few took it seriously and the cult-like zealousness with which it's adherents attempt to promote it. It's this cultist zealot drive that was the only thing that got TM research into journals in the first place.
It's also one the hardest parts of TM indoctrination and brainwashing for TMers to let go of, as it's so strongly imprinted from the get go.
