Psychonautics has existed as a known research field longer than the internet has been around, and there’s a strong argument to make that it’s fundamental, just like physics or math. Ancient Tibetan monks were doing psychonautics, and they laid the groundwork for modern parogenetic techniques.
I haven’t checked it out and I’d be open to review the evidence in its favor, the reason behind my comment was this:
Unfortunately, y’all atheists don’t believe in magic (…) You won’t mix science and religion, so you can’t innovate as much
By definition, if something is observed to behave according to logical laws, it is not supernatural, and therefore not magic. Religion by definition requires faith, and if you’re using faith specifically for your scientific endeavors, you’re doing science wrong.
Religion by definition requires faith, and if you’re using faith specifically for your scientific endeavors, you’re doing science wrong.
That’s categorically untrue. Science has conclusively demonstrated the existence of the placebo effect, which is powered by faith. People believe they will get better, even when evidence does not exist, even when they know they’re in an experiment with a control group, and they get better. That’s faith. Faith is such a huge factor that any pharmaceutical trial must control for it with a placebo control group. Scientists spend a great deal of time and money determining which medicines work because of faith, and which ones work because of chemistry.
The effects of faith upon our reality are scientifically quantifiable, predictable, and controllable. Faith is a tool in the scientist’s toolbelt, just like instruments, drugs, computers, or anything else. Psychonautics can essentially be viewed as the science of faith, and other such reality-altering mental constructs.
I’m a degree holding scientist, and I think in drug trials it’s absolutely essential that you make the subjects feel faith that your control treatment will heal them. Faith, of course, defined as a belief held without evidence. If you fail to make the control group feel faith, then you’re not actually controlling against faith and you cannot predict the effectiveness of your drug in comparison with a placebo. You need to control for faith just like you control for any other physical quality that can act as a variable.
No it isn’t lol. You can tangibly observe, experiment, and interact with the placebo effect/pharmaceuticals. There is a literal method that is used to prove things like the placebo effect.
Faith (from the religious understanding) is for that which can’t be proven, thus antithetical to science. And before I hear something bogus like “faith in the method”: that method has proven itself millions of times over with physical tangible proof.
Hell if you Google the definition of faith the second one is literally “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”
Faith (from the religious understanding) is for that which can’t be proven,
Why would I accept a religious definition of faith? I’m a scientist, and I use a scientific definition of faith. I categorically reject your attempts to force religious understanding of faith on me.
Atheists be like “look at all the things my real and not made up methodology can do” and then post science fiction.
Your comment is at odds with your other comments. And you’d think a scientist would know about the scientific measurements of the placebo effect rather than boiling it down to faith: which is asinine.
You’re seeing contradictions because you’re not actually trying to understand what I’m saying. You’re just using keywords to sort me into a category you already understand. I criticise atheists, so you sort me into the evangelical Christian box and attach all the stereotypes of that image to me. Then I say I’m a scientist and you get confused.
You didn’t bother learning, you just deployed prejudice. I’m using prejudice here in the neutral psychological sense of “pre judgement”. You made a bunch of premature judgements about my beliefs. You should try a science based approach to understanding other people instead of just making assumptions. You’ll stop being confused by my existence if you use science.
Like, for example, earlier you formed a hypothesis that I’m not a scientist, because I criticise atheists. That hypothesis turned out to be false. That means you should be revising your theory and running more tests. You shouldn’t just complain about it and refuse to change when your hypotheses are false.
Psychonautics has existed as a known research field longer than the internet has been around, and there’s a strong argument to make that it’s fundamental, just like physics or math. Ancient Tibetan monks were doing psychonautics, and they laid the groundwork for modern parogenetic techniques.
I haven’t checked it out and I’d be open to review the evidence in its favor, the reason behind my comment was this:
By definition, if something is observed to behave according to logical laws, it is not supernatural, and therefore not magic. Religion by definition requires faith, and if you’re using faith specifically for your scientific endeavors, you’re doing science wrong.
That’s categorically untrue. Science has conclusively demonstrated the existence of the placebo effect, which is powered by faith. People believe they will get better, even when evidence does not exist, even when they know they’re in an experiment with a control group, and they get better. That’s faith. Faith is such a huge factor that any pharmaceutical trial must control for it with a placebo control group. Scientists spend a great deal of time and money determining which medicines work because of faith, and which ones work because of chemistry.
The effects of faith upon our reality are scientifically quantifiable, predictable, and controllable. Faith is a tool in the scientist’s toolbelt, just like instruments, drugs, computers, or anything else. Psychonautics can essentially be viewed as the science of faith, and other such reality-altering mental constructs.
I’m going to be charitable and assume that you’re describing faith as something that may be studied by science, which I have no issues with.
If you think faith is required at any point of the methodology of the scientific method, you should go back to middle school.
I’m a degree holding scientist, and I think in drug trials it’s absolutely essential that you make the subjects feel faith that your control treatment will heal them. Faith, of course, defined as a belief held without evidence. If you fail to make the control group feel faith, then you’re not actually controlling against faith and you cannot predict the effectiveness of your drug in comparison with a placebo. You need to control for faith just like you control for any other physical quality that can act as a variable.
No it isn’t lol. You can tangibly observe, experiment, and interact with the placebo effect/pharmaceuticals. There is a literal method that is used to prove things like the placebo effect.
Faith (from the religious understanding) is for that which can’t be proven, thus antithetical to science. And before I hear something bogus like “faith in the method”: that method has proven itself millions of times over with physical tangible proof.
Hell if you Google the definition of faith the second one is literally “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”
Why would I accept a religious definition of faith? I’m a scientist, and I use a scientific definition of faith. I categorically reject your attempts to force religious understanding of faith on me.
Your comment is at odds with your other comments. And you’d think a scientist would know about the scientific measurements of the placebo effect rather than boiling it down to faith: which is asinine.
You’re seeing contradictions because you’re not actually trying to understand what I’m saying. You’re just using keywords to sort me into a category you already understand. I criticise atheists, so you sort me into the evangelical Christian box and attach all the stereotypes of that image to me. Then I say I’m a scientist and you get confused.
You didn’t bother learning, you just deployed prejudice. I’m using prejudice here in the neutral psychological sense of “pre judgement”. You made a bunch of premature judgements about my beliefs. You should try a science based approach to understanding other people instead of just making assumptions. You’ll stop being confused by my existence if you use science.
Like, for example, earlier you formed a hypothesis that I’m not a scientist, because I criticise atheists. That hypothesis turned out to be false. That means you should be revising your theory and running more tests. You shouldn’t just complain about it and refuse to change when your hypotheses are false.