A commentary examines whether a mathematical estimate of the likelihood of survival of consciousness after death, based on a Drake-like equation combining probability guestimates, constitutes good, bad, or not-even-wrong science. The original Drake equation and its spinoffs have been criticized for combining numbers that produce meaningless results, potentially amounting to pseudomathematics. The discussion relates this to problems of romantic scientism in transpersonal science, including methodolatry that privileges qualitative over quantitative approaches. Self-expansiveness is presented as an example of good science, the critical positivity ratio as bad science, and astrology as pseudoscience that is not-even-wrong. Questions are raised about proper and improper uses of mathematics in transpersonal psychology, with comments on potentially useful mathematical advances.
Ken Wilber, a foundational figure in transpersonal psychology who left the field in the 1990s, recommends that the subdiscipline either disband or change its name. This article presents excerpts from a 2018 conversation between Wilber and two transpersonal psychologists, Harris L. Friedman and Douglas A. MacDonald, in which Wilber explains his reasons for disavowing transpersonal psychology and pursuing integral psychology instead. The dialogue captures Wilber's critique and his suggestions for the field's future.
A reanalysis of data from a published paper claiming that loving-kindness meditation slows biological aging finds no compelling evidence for that claim. The original paper reported that telomere length decreased less in a loving-kindness meditation group than in a control group, with a mindfulness meditation group in between, but the reanalysis shows that the control group's telomere length decreased considerably over a very short time, a change unrelated to meditation. A 2×3 mixed factorial ANOVA found a significant repeated measures main effect but no significant interaction with condition, and one-way ANOVAs on pre-, post-, and change scores were non-significant. Effect sizes were consistently meager, and serious confounds existed, including control group members who meditated and unequal meditation time between the two meditation groups. The extraordinary claim lacks compelling evidence.