--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> 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*.) > > And to have one serious moment this morning (my doctor, the leprichans, or > the Bushmills, I forget which one,
And sometimes I think they may be all the same. I guess its like a Unity experience (-- change that to #1 experience so I sound hip and up to date with dome lingo.) But from some of the tapes I heard of #1 experiences, they sounded a lot more like # 2 experiences. I hope the Gas Station that Buddha pumps his gas at has an unlocked, easy to find rest room. #2 experiences, while flushed with bliss, can transcend the mortal coil in a quick phase change instant. > told me to have one serious moment every morning. But only one.) And since > the coffee hasn't kicked-in sufficiently for my regular serious moment, I > will venture into a serious moment here. > > My satire. or is it sarcasm, was not implying that all studies must be double > blind to be valid. My point was that double blind studies do help protect > against what many would see as unnecessary, prissy protectiveness and pure > prpoppycock, that is, the hypothesis that if the administrator of the > experiment knows the "dose" in the study, there are 100's of subtle, > non-intended takes, marks -- or signs that can affect the results of the > experiment. Its fascinating, bizarre, but true that this occurs. It defies > common sense an logic in many ways. > > And thus, while a double blind is not possible in all cases, and its possible > that none of the above possibility of subtle takes, marks or signs influenced > the experiment, I personally, and I should carelessly venture that most > readers of studies, would feel safer and more secure if the experiment was > "parallel" to the intent of double blind in the sense of the administrators > of the experiment could give a rat's ass as to the results of the experiment. > > I know Keith Wallace was giddy with excitement of his UCLA findings, and M's > huge ego swelling encouragement (to be the greatest physiologist in the > world, ever, would make my hand quiver.) > > I was around enough inside TM experiments to know there was IN THOSE cases > (NOT all TM experiments) that confirmational bias was huge on the part of the > experimenters and experimentees. > > I don't out-of hand reject studies done by MUM scientists, as I don't reject > out-of-hand studies by scientists at Liberty University. But I do seek lots > of corroborative studies from other, "give a rat's ass about the results" > scientists at institutions without a vested interest. (and I know for many > studies, this is an ideal, not a given.) > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > >
