The modern skeptic needs to be well armed to deal with the array of woo being spewed these days. Biblical criticism is pretty much a solved game but the new-agers can toss out faux-facts faster than you can say, “Bullshit!”
One flavour making the rounds here recently has been the junk science of Terrence McKenna. An incredibly articulate ethnobotanist of the late 20th century, he was able to public several books that garnered the attention of aging hippies and which seem to have renewed their popularity with contemporary new agers. As a self-described psychonaut, his writing mostly revolved around his ever more desperate attempts to instill perceived empirical value to the observations he made of his own consciousness while higher than a kite.
His timewave zero and novelty theories tied into eschatological prognostications for 2012 – a prophecy failure that his devotees overlook as quickly as the adherents of Benny Hinn overlook his. Perhaps the most entertaining of his drug-addled ramblings was his ‘Stoned Ape’ conjecture.
In his Stoned Ape conjecture, McKenna tried to convince himself that use of magic mushrooms was the catalyst that sprung homo-sapiens into existence from homo-erectus. He starts by assuming that the magnificent shrooms appeared on the African savanna 100,000 years ago and made their way into the homo-erectus diet – both assumptions being supported by zero evidence. He then misrepresents a scientific study about visual perception to suggest that use of these mushrooms increased visual acuity in our early ancestors – thereby making them better hunters.
Based on his first two unfounded assumptions and an outright fabrication he then jumps to the conclusion that the results performed a miraculous one-time instance of Lamarckian inheritance, altering the offspring of psilocybin-gobbling hominids enough to speciate them from surrounding populations of homo-erectus. It just goes on and on, and he actually managed get published for it in 1992 - Food of the Gods.
I feel this load of malarkey is worth our attention, as skeptics, so we can be better prepared to counter the ridiculous claims of McKennites that we may encounter. I know there is one with us lately and felt he might like to put his thoughts on display here for all of us to observe the workings of such a mind.
Who - me?
Ive said heaps and I've given you heaps and so have others.
I've not just given you my personal opinion and experience but I've backed it up with the opinions of what some of our most trusted academics have to say about it.
You changed the goal posts to drugs and driving. You said that Cocaine doesnt enhace sex appeal - I think you meant sex drive. I believe that it does.
What more do you want? I dont have the time to provide you with endless information that you wont look at.
and I dont think you really want to know because you don't show any genuine enquiry about it.
You could go try some for yourself and then maybe come here and critique it - that would be fun because then you would have to admit how good it was and how much you loved it :)))
Some of the information wasn't particularly good though. The fact that Dawkins would try certain drugs under certain conditions really has no bearing on anything. Carl Sagan may have had his personal experiences and that's great, but anecdotal evidence from a man who doesn't work in a relevant field doesn't mean too much. While I've probably missed some of your resources, the only one I saw which was noteworthy was the abstract to the study mentioned in this article: http://www.nature.com/news/psychedelic-chemical-subdues-brain-activ...
I know you said something about Sam Harris as well, but I'd have to go back through the thread to find the references. Part of the problem is that you throw nonsensical sources out there with possibly good information. It takes time to separate the wheat from the chaff, which really should have been your responsibility for arguments advancing your position.
I see the Sam Harris article now. It was an interesting read (to a point).
I'll just quote directly, so this post comes at the end of the thread.
"Crick on LSD when he discovered LSD = BULLSHIT"
OK, the Crick-LSD thing does indeed seem to be false. That, however, does not dismiss any and all scientific discoveries that are made or even yet to made with help from psychedelics.
"Where are the empirical studies of increased problem solving skills or increased 'creativity' while under the influence of hallucinogens? Psychonauts try to objectively document their highs - but how objective can their observations be when they are also the subject? Give me a break."
Way to put a strawman, eh? Did it ever occur to you that psychedelic research might have other methods than subjects simply documenting their own experiences? If subjects are working on scientific problems that they've been unable to solve, but are able to solve after/during a psychedelic experience, would you agree that there's something more than just a documented trip happening?
I did provide a link for you, but I guess you did not bother to read it. And to be honest, it's not surprising, as it seems you're set out to dismiss anything that might of scientific value if it comes from psychedelic research. Going from dismissing Terence McKenna to dismissing the whole field of psychedelic research is a huge overgeneralization. Here's one story on psychedelic research in the 60s. It's a bit long, but a good read. Have at it. http://www.themorningnews.org/article/the-heretic
And here's a very interesting online book on LSD and problem-solving, aptly named LSD — The Problem-Solving Psychedelic. I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing, but having a look at the chapter for creative problem solving could be interesting as far as this debate goes. Well worth a read (and a bookmark).
There's a lot of psychedelic research going on on MAPS, though much of it is not necessarily related to using psychedelics as a tool for scientific discovery. Here's one example: https://www.maps.org/news-letters/v07n1/07110bag.html
"Show me that LSD or shrooms turn a person of rather pedestrian intellectual skills into a genius with incredibe insights, and we'd be talking. Until then, I'm not buying."
That's on helluva expectation for any drug. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any drug that would transform an inbred redneck to a brilliant scholar due to some impossible drug. Come on now, that doesn't even make sense. But what if you gave a psychedelic to a person that's already a scholar and at the forefront in his scientific field? That's a whole other ball game, and frankly, much more realistic and likely to have any wortwhile results.
"The truth is, science got by very well without drug intoxication for a very long time and can continue to do so."
Indeed, but no one never said that this is a black or white thing. No one's suggesting that all scientific research should be done under the influence of LSD. What is suggested is that LSD can be used as A tool, not THE tool, for further scientific discovery. Come on now, let's stop with the strawmen and other logical fallacies, this is not a personal discussion.
The "direct" effects of psychedelics on scientific discovery is interesting in and of itself, but another interesting fact is that psychedelic experiences can have a profound positive effect on a person. If that person is a scientist it can indeed have an effect on him as a person and also his research due to the lingering effects of the psychedelic experience. It seems to me to be very narrow minded to dismiss any positive effects psychedelics can have on scientific research and the researchers themselv.
It seems to me to be very narrow minded to dismiss any positive effects psychedelics can have on scientific research and the researchers themselv.
It's not narrow-minded to reject a hypothesis that doesn't make sense to start with. The burden is the same whether you are saying that a drug enhances one's scientific acumen or that macaroni and cheese does the same thing.
To turn it into science, one needs experiments, and not in the sense of "Johnny was caught experimenting with drugs."
What would you see as a real scientific test of psychedelic drugs making for better science?
Who's to say that the hypothesis doesn't make sense? Comparing mac and cheese to compounds known to expand and alter consciousness is comparing apples and oranges.
I would say that the research done by James Fadiman would fit the bill. I've already linked to it twice, but since it keeps coming up, here it is: The Heretic
And here's a fitting outtake: After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties. Fadiman and his colleagues published these jaw-dropping results and closed shop.
Is this not indicative, to say the least, that psychedelics can have a positive effect on scientific research and problem solving? How's that hypothesis looking now?
James Fadiman is in the National Geography documentary Inside LSD (youtube full documentary), where he talks about these experiments.
From the subjective reports, 11 categories of enhanced functioning were defined: low inhibition and anxiety, capacity to restructure problem in larger context, enhanced fluency and flexibility of ideation, heightened capacity for visual imagery and fantasy, increased ability to concentrate, heightened empathy with external processes and objects, heightened empathy with people, subconscious data more accessible, association of dissimilar ideas, heightened motivation to obtain closure, visualizing the completed solution.
The results also suggest that various degrees of increased creative ability may continue for at least some weeks subsequent to a psychedelic problem-solving session.
What more do you want? I dont have the time to provide you with endless information that you wont look at.
Let us know when you have actual information to present. Peer reviewed studies supporting your view, for example.
Yes, drugs can alter the mind. More specifically, YOURS!
What some person with no particular expertise as a researcher in the field opines about something is irrelevant, except perhaps as a conjecture that might be formulated into a hypothesis to be tested. But how do you test the idea that drugs make one more perceptive?
I have an idea in that regard. Let's train Dawkins and Harris and a bunch of other people who want to experiment with drugs to fly fighter jets. Then we'll pit them against a team of pilots flying sober and have them all perform difficult maneuvers. Now THAT would be a test of whether the drug enhances perceptions. Shall we get going on that one?
It seems that you're conflating perception with perceptual psychology. I'll quote wikipedia for clarity: Any time you problems-solve, make a decision, make a memory or reflect on one you are using a example of perceptual psychology.
With this example, it seems obvious that psychedelics can have an effect here. This is what is meant when psychedelics alters perception.
It's already known that psychedelics can impair motor skills and alter sensory input, this is not the point. Your experiment with fighter pilots makes no sense.
An article by James Fadiman: The promise of psychedelic research.
Typically, micro-dosers talk about sustained intellectual and emotional clarity. A physician I talked with reported, “Since I started microdosing, taking 10 mcg of LSD every three days, I am in touch with a deep place of ease and beauty and trust. I have more strength and determination.” An addiction counselor concludes, “The subthreshold doses helped me to be more focused overall, with better mental clarity. I was also more energetic, with better memory recall.”
Low Dose: Creative Problem-Solving
At a dose of about 100 micrograms of LSD, higher-than-normal levels of creativity have been reported. Willis Harman, president of IONS from 1975 through 1996, helped pioneer this work and was convinced that it was possible to harness the psychedelic experience for the purpose of finding solutions to difficult technical and scientific problems. At the time, there was no evidence that this was likely. People working with psychedelics generally felt that the experience was so sensorially overwhelming and psychologically and emotionally engaging that no one could or would focus that psychic energy on a problem in physics, architecture, computer design, or biology.
Nevertheless, in l965, Dr. Harman, together with a small research team of which I was a member, conducted a series of sessions with senior scientists and architects. One criterion for inclusion in the study was that a participant had to have been trying to solve a specific problem for several months without success. Having already invested considerable effort on the problem area, finding a solution mattered personally as well as professionally to them.
They were instructed to use the psychedelic-induced state as a way to stay with their problem and not get distracted by any other influence. After taking the psychedelic (LSD or mescaline), they were encouraged to lie down, put on eyeshades, and let their minds relax by listening to music for several hours. Soon after the peak of the psychophysiological experience, they were asked to sit up and take the same standard creativity tests they had taken earlier. They spent the rest of the afternoon—and for most of them that evening—on their chosen problems.
This initial group of four was so successful that later groups were told to bring at least two problems, so that if one was solved, they would have another one ready. [Of the forty-four problems attempted by twenty-seven subjects, only four were scored “no solution obtained.” Twenty problems were scored “new avenues for investigation opened.”1 One participant voiced what seemed to be true for many of the subjects: “The ideas considered and developed in the session appear as important steps, and the period of the session was the single most productive period of work on this problem I have had in the several months preceding or following the session.”2 As an indirect measurement of the perceived value of the process, many colleagues of those in the original study eagerly volunteered to be prospective subjects.
I visited the website and have some observations. James Fadiman has written a book entitled The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide: Safe, Therapeutic and Sacred Journeys. Sacred is a synonym for "Holy." Right there, Fadiman sounds like a psychedelic fanboy rather than an objective scientist.
I see no indication that the article there has been peer reviewed. And no wonder, with other articles appearing there like "Can Mediums Really Talk to the Dead?," "The Power of Premonition," and "Mythic Visions for Uncertain Times," they probably don't have any peers, unless they, too, are psychedelic or occult
The specialty of the author of "Can Mediums Really Talk to the Dead," Julie Beischel's seems to be the occult, as she's widely published in parapsychological publications, with a lot of concentration on contacting the dead. (Queue up the Twilight Zone theme here.) Dean Radin is her co-author and he seems to specialize in similar themes. One of his "academic" gems is "Testing the plausibility of psi-mediated computer system failures," which I hazard no respectable scientist would even agree to peer review.
It seems to me that their work is just one level above bending spoons with the mind or TV's Ghost Hunters.
A journal that countenances that sort of work is hard to take very seriously, I must say.
Anyway, Fadiman's stuff sounds like non-peer reviewed psychobabble. When his work hits the mainstream, let me know. Until then, his work is very much outside the realm of respectable science.
"Yes, drugs can alter the mind. More specifically, YOURS!"
Can you show me something that supports your claims that drugs only alter MY mind?
I can't provide evidence. I never said that.