That's bias. What makes popping pills and modern science less liable to harm? Even in modern drugs today we are seeing them modeled on magic mushrooms and exotic drugs cited by McKenna and related authors. -- We're not even on the same page as we speak here.
And that's because of bias. Moreover, I've cited authors who are leaders of these fields, who present at TED and speak in recent discussion forums. McKenna is modern. Stamets is modern.
You just don't read these people, and that's why I cited the madinamerica.com article.
You're just telling me about linguistic and intellectual biases that I'm already fully aware of, and that I tried to anticipate with my post.
And operative word: "if" -- "if" that research is flawed. What are you even arguing? I could argue that against modern medicine, but that is circumstantial and requires precision. What you are saying is not precise, and hardly even relevant; or rather it is too vague to be relevant. Any research can be flawed. But there is even a further question of interpretation of that research; hence why I say "understand." You're using broad strokes as if I am doing so, when I am not.
I honestly just think it's linguistic/information exchange bias going on here. I'm citing those I'm reading. You're telling me that anything could be inaccurate or falsehood; that doesn't get us anywhere.
Unfortunately there's a big problem with "off label use" of psychiatric medication.
But, yes, science means we use "weird" mystic concepts like "mindfulness" (from Buddhist meditation) because we know it works for some people and some mental health problems.
And that's because of bias. Moreover, I've cited authors who are leaders of these fields, who present at TED and speak in recent discussion forums. McKenna is modern. Stamets is modern.
You just don't read these people, and that's why I cited the madinamerica.com article.
You're just telling me about linguistic and intellectual biases that I'm already fully aware of, and that I tried to anticipate with my post.
And operative word: "if" -- "if" that research is flawed. What are you even arguing? I could argue that against modern medicine, but that is circumstantial and requires precision. What you are saying is not precise, and hardly even relevant; or rather it is too vague to be relevant. Any research can be flawed. But there is even a further question of interpretation of that research; hence why I say "understand." You're using broad strokes as if I am doing so, when I am not.
I honestly just think it's linguistic/information exchange bias going on here. I'm citing those I'm reading. You're telling me that anything could be inaccurate or falsehood; that doesn't get us anywhere.