3 ms·

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I will simply point out that people who have used LSD have been claiming that it's pretty much magic, that everyone should try

by M_Grey 10y ago

I don't have a dog in this hunt, I will simply point out that people who have used LSD have been claiming that it's pretty much magic, that everyone should try it, etc... for decades. The very guarded initial ventures into real research seem to be entirely secondary to the evangelical zeal of some people who have taken the drug in question, and feel it's "essential". Edit: I should point out that obviously, they could have reached this conclusion because it is that amazing, but a lot of people have ironclad convictions about everything from drugs to religion after all. The research should hopefully offer an answer that can be, frankly, believed.

boomboomsubban 10y ago
The research is secondary because it is something they read about long ago compared to an actual experience they had that may have impacted their life. Most of it's proponents are in favor of more research, but with that being almost impossible still felt the available information was impressive enough.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  The research is only secondary for people that don't want to turn on critical thinking or set aside biases. I would say this is not relevant, because it true for all debates. Just like climate science, some are open minded, some people could not be dissuaded with any amount of evidence.
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    When there is an absence of new evidence for such a long period of time, the research can become secondary out of laziness and forgetfulness rather than a refusal to think critically.
WhitneyLand 10y ago
You suggest folly as a possible explanation, but there are a few problems with the cogency of that. 1) You point to nothing in this paper, other research, my comment, or contemporary comments of others to support that hypothesis. 2) The behavior you describe skeptically could match equally well a society where most people live unaware of a great truth hidden to them, in part because the government has made even acquiring information illegal. In North Korea, a small minority whisper fantastical ideas that are difficult to comprehend, let alone believe. Most of the world is not starving. Places exist with untold self-determination. Our leader is not God. These people often speak with an almost "evangelical zeal". 3) Do you see me doing thrill-seeker liquor store holdups with a "Born to Lose" tattoo on my chest? Ok that was De Niro, but the point is how do you explain people who do not fit the profile? I am not new age, spiritual, or culturally connected to these ideas. I resent mysticism, super natural forces, and magic. Of course I accept the possibility of being wrong. But the little recent research governments have allowed hasn't yet pointed to that. And until it does how can I deny things that, while anecdotal, are based on first hand observations? Maybe we'll have solid data some day, if I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I'm pointing to a basic desire for evidence when presented with claims, especially extraordinary ones, especially when presented with religious fervor. That is all.

by M_Grey 10y ago

boomboomsubban 10y ago

The research is secondary because it is something they read about long ago compared to an actual experience they had that may have impacted their life. Most of it's proponents are in favor of more research, but with that being almost impossible still felt the available information was impressive enough.

WhitneyLand 10y ago
The research is only secondary for people that don't want to turn on critical thinking or set aside biases. I would say this is not relevant, because it true for all debates. Just like climate science, some are open minded, some people could not be dissuaded with any amount of evidence.
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  When there is an absence of new evidence for such a long period of time, the research can become secondary out of laziness and forgetfulness rather than a refusal to think critically.

WhitneyLand 10y ago

You suggest folly as a possible explanation, but there are a few problems with the cogency of that. 1) You point to nothing in this paper, other research, my comment, or contemporary comments of others to support that hypothesis. 2) The behavior you describe skeptically could match equally well a society where most people live unaware of a great truth hidden to them, in part because the government has made even acquiring information illegal. In North Korea, a small minority whisper fantastical ideas that are difficult to comprehend, let alone believe. Most of the world is not starving. Places exist with untold self-determination. Our leader is not God. These people often speak with an almost "evangelical zeal". 3) Do you see me doing thrill-seeker liquor store holdups with a "Born to Lose" tattoo on my chest? Ok that was De Niro, but the point is how do you explain people who do not fit the profile? I am not new age, spiritual, or culturally connected to these ideas. I resent mysticism, super natural forces, and magic. Of course I accept the possibility of being wrong. But the little recent research governments have allowed hasn't yet pointed to that. And until it does how can I deny things that, while anecdotal, are based on first hand observations? Maybe we'll have solid data some day, if I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer.

M_Grey 10y ago
I'm pointing to a basic desire for evidence when presented with claims, especially extraordinary ones, especially when presented with religious fervor. That is all.