"We then randomly assigned 20 of them to take part in weekly meditation classes"
It makes sense to be critical of bad experiment design, and skeptical about extraordinary results. On the other hand, claiming bad experiment design based on the amount of data presented in the article seems premature. Maybe wait for the full paper and criticize the methodology if it appears flawed.
> Maybe wait for the full paper and criticize the methodology if it appears flawed.
Eh, if the authors and their university are going to promote this in the media--and, make no mistake, this has been promoted heavily in order for it to reach the NYTimes--then I think it's fair game. You don't get to publicize your claims on the national stage and then avoid criticism until after your paper is published and the reader has forgotten everything (except the vague impression that meditation is backed by science).
It makes sense to be critical of bad experiment design, and skeptical about extraordinary results. On the other hand, claiming bad experiment design based on the amount of data presented in the article seems premature. Maybe wait for the full paper and criticize the methodology if it appears flawed.