On 23 Mar 2013, at 01:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
of junk science!

I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
experimental results.

I think he is an hoinest guy, but I don't follow him, as its basic argupent is that we can't expain some things from some theory, which is very difficult to verify. Gödel made the same mistake by thinking that we might find evidence against evolution by showing that the species have not the time to evolved, but that argument is logically refuted by many-worlds ontologies. Then Shedrake add something even more difficult to understand (the morphic fields). But is dark matter really any better? It is of course still traditional aristotelianism, and who knows. No reason to censor him, of course.

Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
with ideas.

You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction.

The many who invest in the drug war, really hate the idea that addiction can be cured with some drugs. It illustrates too much well that abuse of a substance is an heath issue, nor a penal issue. The fact is that many drugs can help, and sometimes cure, many addiction and habituation.

We are legally
forbidden from testing this claim. Can you claim with a straight face
that there is freedom of scientific inquiry?

The domain of health is rotten deep inside the bones. (It can be worse in some other domain since a much longer period, like theology).

The very notion of drug makes no sense at all. It is an invention of criminals to put criminals into power. It leads to the nationalization of health politics, and the unfair and unsane abandon of competition, and a tyranny at the medical level.

There is no reason to not treat the medication like the cosmetic. Even if a medication appears to have some side--effect, the laws should enforce only the presence of warning notice, not the illegality.

There has never been any serious problem with drugs, except since prohibition. When drugs are prohibited, the goal is political. In Turkey they have always smoked a lot of tobacco, but from time to time some sultans have made it illegal (with death penalty) just to persecute some people.

The statistics done in all countries, and available in multiple places on the net, shows clearly that when a drug is prohibited, the consumption of the drug is multiplied by a huge factor.

Here most of the science is done correctly, but the information is hidden, and politics uses pseudo-science at its place. I have studied hundreds of papers on tobacco, cannabis and heroin which are chef- d'oeuvre of delibarate crackpotery. *Some* publishers are passive or active accomplices. It shows also that the notion of peer-reviewing has many defects, especially around industrial products, where conflict of interest are numerous.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to