--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > >The study doesn't tout TM, it > > merely makes distinctions among three types of > > meditation, TM being one. > > > > Also note the *automatic* assumption that no study > > involving TM done by a TM-practicing researcher could > > possibly be "objective." > > And probably double blind trials are way too strict. Just > because the doctor knows which is the placebo -- I mean > how could that possible affect the results of any > experiment. Those silly whitecoats!
Non sequitur. But taking your comment on its own terms, double-blind is an appropriate method for some types of studies and not for others. (For some studies it isn't even *possile*.) It's a mistake to assume that if a study isn't double-blind, it can't be considered valid; it depends entirely on what *kind* of study you're talking about. True in some cases, not at all true in others.
