On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:35 AM, sparaig wrote:
Well, I'd trust them to have something more cogent to say about TM
alpha levels in recent
TM studies and how TM alpha levels are measured in recent TM
studies and what TM
researchers say it all means in recent TM studies if they cited a
TM study from later than
1986 concerning documented alpha levels in/after TM practice...
...or cited any other physiological research on TM after 1986, for
that matter. The 2004
study they mention (and complain has no concrete physiological
data) is a study consisting
of psychological testing and interviews, itself a followup on a
physiological study the
Cambridge Handbook people never bother to cite for some reason
(perhaps the fact that it
wouldn't allow them to criticize the 2004 study for not being
physiological).
Dunno. Probably because it wasn't published in a major journal would
be my guess. They leave all junk journal science out.
"...we review only those EEG studies published in top-tier journals
and/or those that focused on the study of longterm
practitioners."
Alpha's pretty well understood and unless they are doing something
different, like doing LDS calculations, I'd doubt it raises any
eyebrows--esp. if it's within the level of normal variation, which is
of course no big deal.
I thought the recent BBC special on meditation was a good example of
unbiased scientists who look at TM research, they tend to walk away
not only unimpressed when they see the data behind the exaggerated
claims but also there's the disappointment that they'd been mislead
when the truth comes out. It also implies the only reason their
research has gotten so much press in the first place wasn't on the
research's merits, it's that they've been touting their own research
by their PR department, Purusha, etc. Of course this appears to TM
advocates that they're being dissed, when in fact the science was
never what it was hyped to be in the first place and that's why the
scientific community ignores it or is suspicious.
