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.

Views: 12580

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


@Unseen - "Anyway, there's nothing there that's verifiable in any way, and if it's not verifiable it's just something someone said."

Unseen you know that I like and respect you and I know that your very intelligent and your a cat person so that proves it.

But I dont think your supposed to go about this issue in the same way as the religious argument. 'proove it - proove it .. blah blah ... yadda yadda

because its not starting wars or its not interfering with gay marriage it didnt make people burn witches .. you know what I'm saying.

I think your  just being a little stubborn ...:)




If Richard Dawkins supports it - then its true.

I rest my case.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam, the so-called argument from authority. A logical fallacy. 

Bertrand Russell didn't always get it right, and I don't think Dawkins is quite in Russell's class yet. 

Angela, sorry, Sagan was just talking like a classic pothead who take a toke and thinks he has some insights into reality whereas he's just experiencing a drug.

And since it's "an extreme mind altering drug" that is probably the best reason ever for not taking it seriously. Evolution gave us a brain whose natural and normal state is uninebriated.


This is something that you can try and verify for yourself if you wanted to and If your not interested in it and its not for you then thats fine too. 

 "Evolution gave us a brain whose natural and normal state is uninebriated."

But we are human, since when has that explanation ever worked? Humans always try new things.






and umm -  just because i said that its a serious drug thats not the same as dangerous.

Unseen? Do you like a drink or two?

Yes, and I have the most profound insights under the influence.

"if it's not verifiable it's just something someone said."

Lol. But people say fun stuff, and sometimes it's entertaining even if it might be bullshit.

I'm leaning towards bullshit.


Richard Dawkins believes it too. Thats my best defense.

So theres no more need for me to defend it otherwise its going around in circles now ...

What more can I say?

Well, I admit I didn't watch the video, but from what I read he only sounded like he'd like to try it. 


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service