Is That Legal?

Why should asking a practitioner of meditation to a conference of neuroscientists be the moral equivalent of war between geologists and creationists? After all, research into things like alpha states has been aided by studying various people, such as dedicated Buddhist monks, who were willing to aid researchers searching for knowledge.

Though the heart of this blog is certainly in the right place, some of the last comments have been a bit, as stated, 'arrogant.'

Or, in my own restricted view, very narrow. Buddhists don't have much in the way of quarrels with rationality or science (possibly because they consider it all generally irrelevant anyways, but I am not a Buddhist). The world is not limited to the U.S and its fairly small minded, endlessly dogmatic, and generally tedious hamster cage discussions which may amuse those spinning their wheels, but which don't hold the interest of those outside the cage for more than a moment or two, before going on with their lives.

Good golly!
The article to which I link suggests the similarity.
I practice meditation, and I think the answer to the question I've posed is "no."
Do you notice how much you've projected onto me and my question?

Actually, not really that much - though the semi-personal reference to being 'arrogant' is a touch too much, granted. After all, most commenters have to be pretty arrogant to think that what they write is equal to the original author (or not, as the case may be, but still...). In this case, it is still a group of mainly American scientists (it seems) who are objecting, though the article itself is very fair, if somewhat limited in its scope. The research I was referring to dates from the time when EEGs where being used for the 'controversial' idea that the brain actually experiences measurably different states of consciousness, which could be empirically replicated in a laboratory setting. (I'm getting old.)

Possibly, I missed the subtle point trying to be made, while only picking up on an obvious one - ideology as a replacement for seeking the truth seems to be an increasing interest of many people, including myself obviously.

Missing the rhetorical use of the question form was simply the sort of thing that a non-lawyer / non-philosopher gets used to, while assuming the question actually comes from the person asking it, and is not merely a point of departure or discussion. (Nothing like a little bit of the intentional fallacy creeping into blogosphere discourse.)

Keep in mind as you read about scientists protesting his appearance that many of these protesting scientists are Chinese and the protest is political, even though they frame it differently.

You're absolutely right Debra! If you're a Chinese-American, your opinion does not count for anything.

What a silly, ignorant and racist comment.