--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutp...@...> wrote: > > > The physiological/neurological research on TM has always been interesting and > legit because its just a straight measure of brain wave activity. The problem > has come in when there is an attempt to correlate these measure with complex > psychological traits. The worst is when you see a degree of hemispheric > coherence at some frequency and someone claims that this "means" that TM > allows you to use more of your brain and therefore you are "better" at > something than someone who doesn't have this coherence. The politics of > consciousness enter when the non-scientists or the either deceptive/naive > scientists make very self-serving statements regarding the research. This was > non-physiological, but it is like the latest research that, according to the > TMO, shows that TM reduces the symptoms of ADHD. Even the TM "scientist" > David Orme-Johnson claimed this and it is just patently false. The design of > the study does not allow you to conclude this at all, primarily > because there was no control group and each subject functioned as there own > control. If you know anything about research design, such a study essentially > tells you nothing other than a bunch of students over x amount of time had a > lessening of their ADHD symptoms. Why this lessening occurred, which is the > most important question, can not be concluded because no variables have been > controlled. I would love to ask David, why he believes you can conclude that > TM is the one variable that "caused" these results when not a single variable > has been controlled. >
Pete, In some hundreds of studies published now, some of them are controlled? David O-J was retired to Florida wasn't he? Seems he left (was cast out?) with some lot of other faculty about that time. Does he still have movement credentials? Does seems if they could just use the two, three or four hundred good studies then they'd still be able to credibly crow. Seems to be they're getting killed out in the public domain over parts of what had been their research. However, evidently they're teaming more with real universities to publish now. Probably a good strategy longterm. > > --- On Mon, 5/4/09, dhamiltony2k5 <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > > From: dhamiltony2k5 <dhamiltony...@...> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Utopian voice in MUM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 9:24 PM > > <paste> > > > > Dear Doug, > > On a more pragmatic note: > > As you can see from the recent News bulletin included > > below. > > > > The mere fact that a peer reviewed Professional Journal > > accepts this type of research silently speaks with a > > mightier voice than all the critics on FFL. > > > > One has to bust a gut to get published in one of these > > journals. One's work has to be impeccable and considered > > relevant by the your peers to even be considered. > > > > Like any stable worthy of it's hard earned reputation, > > no professional Journal wants to be seen backing the wrong > > horse. > > > > All love, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <paste> > > > "For me the radical arguments like the ones you > > brought to my attention seem to pose either/or choices. > > Either the measurement of EEG alpha waves is an accurate > > indicator of higher states of consciousness or they are not. > > But I have learned to appreciate that the relative universe > > I have enjoyed for more than 60 years, is a limitless > > reservoir of infinite choice. I have often observed that a > > concept that our imaginations project as being > > 'either/or' is seamlessly integrated into a greater > > whole as new knowledge is gained and expands. > > > > > > For this reason, I conclude that all the scientific > > research on consciousness has some value. In its most > > elemental form it has a value in that it will take us to > > greater knowledge. But more pragmatically speaking, I > > believe that there will be an integration of everything that > > is being learned as the measurements of consciousness come > > together to give us an understanding that is greater than > > their collective technical components. > > > > > > On a final note, I believe it is myopically > > prejudicial for a critic to say of a brilliant scientist > > that he is clinging to his theory because his theory is what > > he wants to believe to be true. On the contrary, to my > > surprise the brilliant scientist that I have met here at > > Maharishi University of Management our true seekers of > > knowledge, (are) ready, willing, and able to let the light > > of science illuminate their path." <end paste> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
