J C:

Yes, you're right, I meant Davis and Vago. Sorry, I overlooked that.

If you look at Change's reply to you earlier in the thread, you'll see he put the language in bold that makes it clear that Davis and Vago are writing about their own work.

You are correct that the article does not contain much information about the study such as study size and location of the research. The article describes the results as "preliminary" so hopefully we will see more articles from the authors with further results on cessations in MRIs. If you look at Warren's essay, he describes the fruitions as being unexpected, so the study itself was not designed to look at cessations. Cessations just happened unexpectedly, and then Davis and Vago wrote about it.

I don't know if Young was one of the research subjects - I'm not sure where you're getting that. According to Warren's article, Young helped with the study. Young's essay is cited because it is used as a reference for the meditation techniques and is part of the methodology of the study. They're referring to "Young's system of training," so they cite to a summary of it. The way that citations work in these academic papers is that they are used to provide authority for points made in the paper. It would not make sense for an academic paper to cite a narrative account of the experiment written by a participant.

Okay, so here's an actual, scientific reason why your proof that only three people don't follow your "proof" ("...

what I see from this thread is that you were the only one confused by the very clear language of Vago and Young's writeup of their study,") ~ is no proof and that if Change A changes his reply 30 more times and you have 30 more people that suddenly agree with you, you have no proof. This is important becuase you linked what you think are scientific studies and this is a simple, useful thing to remember about sample size and proofs:

** ∀n∈N, n^2 + n + 41 = prime number**So this means if you plug in natural numbers (N) into this formula, the formula would prove that prime numbers are validated by this.

And, indeed, you can prove this for many numbers and get confident that this expression is a proof for prime numbers.

But, how many numbers do you need to get through to see that this seemingly good proof is not a proof?

(Compare with: How many people do you need to state that the language ("Indeed, in a recent study...") is clear and goes on to say little in order to have proof?)

You may remember that you need to get all the way till 40 to realize, nope, that proposition is not a proof for primes.

So even if 39 people here in this thread said (and they didn't: 3 persons noted unclarity/conditional "If"/gap), you need to get a statistical bundle together for a proof like the one you'd like.

So when you write, "

Katy, what I see from this thread is that you were the only one confused by the very clear language of Vago and Young's writeup of their study," you make not only false statement, but you employ a false proposition (see prime number example above) unless you can find your sample size to be true for many, many people-- and already you don't have that while still in the single digits of people replying.

This is why science has sample sizes that are large and backed up with data so that "trust" is nice, but backed by transparency-- like not keeping

opaque, standing well on one's data.

And this is why I have questions about the Harvard-CUNY Davis-Vago "study", particularly in the line starting "Indeed, in a recent study..."

They offer

~~to ~~evidence or details of their work? You could not even reply to my questions about their work (number of participants, for example).

Other questions:

What are their criteria of "adept" meditators and how did they obtain/vet this population? Was it double-blind

qualification for obtaining participants or did some "teacher", perhaps the Shinzen Young you mention, just hand picking people?

__Why is my inquery relevant in general (in my opinion)?__Well, what is the are the results of being incomplete and unquestionably incomplete in their data and methods?

There's costs and distribution of state

public money for example,

and the accountability ethic when using the public's money:

- What did it cost the CUNY (a state-funded school) to put X-number of of undefined people in a scanner?
- What did I get for that payment and why can't I and other payers of CUNY-fMRI work in NY state that year, see the results of "a recent study"?
- How many homeless children (under 18) are there in New York City? Could an evidenced-based food and shelter service have gotten more money if CUNY did not?
- Who should be funded, an evidenced-based, stastical model or an unknown, fill-in-the-blanks work?

__Now related to meditation and the rigor to study it scientifically:__People have limited time; what should they study?

Should people study something they can see the evidence of which for themselves or should people study something that they must fill in the blanks with faith in charasmatic persons?

If meditation were a pharmaceutical (and there's eveidence it can be), then should you take pills that have incomplete, guesswork studies or should you take pills that are clear in their evidence basis?

Back to you, becuase you linked these studies:

Again, what can you tell me about the study from the Harvard-CUNY paper you choose to cite here?

How many participants?

Ages?

Definition of "adept practitioners?

Who wrote the definition?

Costs?

etc

If you have developed some skillful attributes from your (presumed) meditation practice, you then may take interest in how "studies" of meditation are carried out and shared publically: Are studies rigorous, accountable and transparent welcoming all to review and scrutinize and improve (like open software) or closed and incomplete, subject to guesswork?

edit 1x verbal flubs = /