--- 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 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. ;-) > > >> > > > > > > Bias in a specific field of interest is orthogonal to expertise. > > > > > > Well, not exactly, the greater the level of expertise, the more likely > > > a researcher has biases, just because. > > > > > > I don't see that. These guys who are at the forefront of their fields > > have their reputations on the line with every study they publish. It > > behooves them to uphold the highest standards of practice. > > > > So the fact that Davidson literally wrote teh book on the significance of > EEG asymmetry doesn't imply he's more likely bound to theories that > support his published work, as opposed to theories and research that > call into question his work? > > Jujst about every philsopher of science I'm familiar with from Kuhn to Lakatos > points out the exact opposite: established figures in a field tend to be > the least open-minded about theories and studies that conflict with their own > theories and findings. > > Of course, it goes both ways: TM researchers have an extreme emotional > attachment to studies that confirm MMY's theories. > > > Lawson >
I understand your bias issue and I think that there are a lot of individual differences on how much a person wants to hold onto a theory. But yes, it is a problem and we all have a degree of bias. We want to be right. We get married to our ideas. However, I am not prepared to conclude that there were research results (emphasis on results) that conflicted with Davidson's theories or his results. And, Davidson does not seem to have set in stone theories on mediation, he appears to see learning about mediation as a process. I do think that there is little question that Davidson is as suited as anyone to evaluate the evidence and theories. His background is appropriately suited to look at alternative meditation theories. I certainly can understand discounting a theory if your analysis indicates that the theory is not supported by the evidence or that the evidence is so weak that it is not worth considering at this point. We all do that all the time. It is the only way to function in a complicated world. Pseudo scientific theories come up all the time. Like laying on of the hands to heal. When these theories are criticized, it is the critics who seem to get accused of bias, of having an unwillingness to expand their world view. I say the burden is on the proponent. Be interesting. Find results and people will take note. But if you treat your research like it is for sales purposes and always ignore the negative, you are going to get discounted or at least distrusted and it is your own fault.
