--- 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 that they have the background to conclude > > > that the studies they excluded from their report were either not > > > sufficiently rigorous or did not report anything of significant > > > interest. > > > > > > It is, however, the TM researcher's job to specifically show what the > > > theoretical framework is for their work. > > > > > > 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 systematically mapped the correlates of alpha. > > > > These guys ain't no slouchers. ;-) > > > > But I agree, it's probably not worth discussing without someone > > willing to be honest and objective. Fundamentalists aren't likely to > > change their beliefs, but they will do whatever they can to obfuscate > > and misdirect, a form of dishonesty common in fundamentalists of many > > sorts. > > > Yes, there is no way to even talk about it. Instead, vague > accusations of not having the proper theoretical framework are made. > I hope some other posters here read the article as it is worth > reading. > > For the record, Vaj and I are not always in agreement. Vaj is a mystic > and I am not. > > Oh well, this all makes me tired. The more I read actual TM studies > the more put off I am. Here, we just talk about people who talk about > the studies. Rarely do we actually talk about a particular study, > which is the only thing of relevance. When I first was on this board I > had not looked at TM research for years and years and was a bit > interested to see how things had developed. I am starting to lose > interest. > > I am also frustrated that so many journals publish crap. Not just TM > crap, but crap in general. The signal to noise ratio is way off. Part > of the problem is NCCAM. It needs to be tossed in the garbage. > Instead of spending time here I should be working to abolish NCCAM. > > Which will be on my list of things to participate in over the next few > months. >
Rather than abolish NCCAM, why not require it to have more stringent peer review? L
