--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Vaj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Another nice review of meditation research can be found in > > > The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for > > > neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on > > > meditation and neurosceince objectively reviews some of the > > > exaggerated claims by TM cult researchers, esp. the specious > > > claim of "coherence" during TM. It turns out what they've > > > been touting for years now is statistically insignificant > > > and often seen in normal waking state! > > > > As Vaj knows but doesn't tell you, there are several > > *very* serious problems with the treatment of TM research > > in this study, including that the authors didn't bother > > to look at the most recent *20 years* of research on TM. > > And of course, this is incorrect. There was TM research as > recent as the year of publication.
We've already covered this, as you know. Your assertion is disingenuous. Again: See posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. > And of course the study in question only lists the studies > they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known > as the APA style, common in almost all research for > publication. More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not refer to those later studies *because they did not look at them*. > Really since as early as the 1980's it was known and shown--and > replicated sometimes as many as 3 times--that TM claims were and > still are fallacious. It was not "known and shown" in the 1980s that TM claims post-1980s are fallacious, obviously. Again, the Buddhist researchers *did not look at any of the TM research* post-1986 in the areas they were discussing. > Really after that was proven and replicated repeatedly, there > wasn't much reason to emphasize the newer bogus research Obviously, you can't tell whether research is bogus until you've examined it. The Buddhist researchers did not examine post-1986 TM research. > but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that these > leading researchers are missing anything at all worth > mentioning. What an extraordinarily empty assertion. Again, see my posts #168345, #168474, and #168493. > Fortunately the Alberta study does show for > us the continuing poor quality as it does show that TM > research still is pretty much still just bad marketing > research. Unfortunately, Vaj fails to mention that the Alberta study found that *all* research on the 11 different practices studied (including Vipassana, Mindfulness, Zen, and TM) was of what it deemed to be "poor quality." The point of that study was to point out that meditation research *as a whole* needs to be refined and improved. Here's the conclusion: "The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results."
