• JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Why in the world is this being downvoted?

    ScienceDaily is a highly reputable source, AFAIK.

    EDIT: Thanks, downvoting weirdos. May I ask why you’re even subbed here?

      • JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        Funny. The very paper itself is proposing that belief isn’t needed, because we have measurables. Or you can look at the real-world, impressive work of Mark Epstein, who does a great job coming at meditation (and Buddhism) from both an insider and an outsider’s perspective. (he’s a trained and licensed psychiatrist)

        So maybe it’s really more of an anti-belief thing here?

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      ScienceDaily is a highly reputable source, AFAIK.

      lmao.

      Why in the world is this being downvoted?

      Because it’s bullshit from a quack chiropractor.