Your anti drug bias.

Summary:

Your bias is showing regarding your tone concerning "Hallucinogenic drugs".

Your anti drug bias.

Entheogen (guest) 02 Sep 2010 13:03

You imply that because many 2012 researchers have USED "Hallucinogenic" drugs that somehow that discredits their ideas.

I would like to know what you have researched regarding psychedelics and the mind? What about the area of consciousness?.

There has been a lot of serious and respectable research regarding psychedelics and the mind. Your very narrow minded myopic view regarding this subject weakens YOUR "debunking" attempts.

I would suggest you go to MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies)

http://maps.org/

The overall TONE of this website is pretty typical for a skeptical website. You throw a lot of junk in there about 2012 (which IS junk.. admittedly) and then use that to attempt to muddy the waters and discredit legitimate research and investigation.

You are just merely "debunkers" but that does not mean you are "Free thinkers" and while Critical thinking and reason is important.. you really demonstrate serious bias and negativity and a lack of research into other areas of study that would perhaps provide you with a broader understanding of the world, science and consciousness. Not everything is black and white.. and reductionist materialistic science IS very old school…. I would get up to speed on the more recent info out there.

Peace

Re: Your anti drug bias.

UndeadxNurse 02 Sep 2010 14:09

Technically, research of the human psyche is, in itself, insane.

Most of the research is mainly based on Human behavior and the possibility of Telekinesis, etc.
The ideal that we can unlock something that is much, much more complicating than anything that we've ever seen is laughable, at best. Unlocking strands of DNA is child's play compared to unlocking all of the brain and it's this fact, that people need to realize.

However the ideal that hallucinogens amplifies a certain part of the mind that lets the individual speak to God, aliens, Elvis, a fat guy from the future, is completely hilarious. Now, let's get this straight, tell me if I'm wrong..
If I go smoke roughly, 10 pounds of marijuana in about five hours, claim to see the future and, possibly God, you will believe my claims without even so much as investigating my claims?

If there were more people like you in this world, I would assume that we would see a lot more dead kids due to drivers under the influence. Tsk, tsk.

As stated before, research on this, is, in itself, insane, especially research that has been done in the past.
Do you even know how barbaric some of those tests were? We cut people open for having speech impediments, for crying out loud.

As for the "tone" of this website, of course it's skeptical, but the Human psyche is not the topic, 2012 is.
Personally, I couldn't care less about Telekinesis and other bullshit that these idiots are wasting their time on, considering of course, that many of these "psychics" are frauds, and some even admit to being frauds.

However on the other hand, no one can argue one way or, the other about the Human mind, because quite honestly, we don't know a damn thing about our own brains. That, Sir, is a fact.

So, until someone presents facts for these claims, I'll stick with my handy little claim that they're full of bullshit, because honestly, we haven't even begun to unlock our own minds, none of us have any clue what our minds are capable of, not the researchers, nor the skeptics.

Unlike the claims, that, too, is fact.

Tata.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Re: Your anti drug bias.

TheGreatJuju 02 Sep 2010 14:33

You imply that because many 2012 researchers have USED "Hallucinogenic" drugs that somehow that discredits their ideas.

When claims are based around altered states, that does discredit the ideas, padawan. Claims are being made that cannot be objectively differentiated form imagination.

There has been a lot of serious and respectable research regarding psychedelics and the mind. Your very narrow minded myopic view regarding this subject weakens YOUR "debunking" attempts.

If you've actually read the Terrence McKenna article on this site, then you should be aware that, while his drug use is mentioned (it was central to his claims, after all), the ultimate criticism leveled against him has nothing to do with his use of drugs.

Maybe you'd like to elaborate on how any mention of hallucinogenic drugs on this site "weakens" any aspect of the arguments presented here? You know, elaborate, instead of just claiming it.

I would suggest you go to MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies)

I suggest you actually read what you're criticizing.

The overall TONE of this website is pretty typical for a skeptical website.

And what tone is that?

You throw a lot of junk in there about 2012 (which IS junk.. admittedly)

Well, this site is called "2012 Hoax" for a reason, in case you didn't notice.

and then use that to attempt to muddy the waters and discredit legitimate research and investigation.

Yet another claim with nothing behind it. Where exactly do you think this is done?

You are just merely "debunkers" but that does not mean you are "Free thinkers"

If by "free thinkers" you mean people who make claims and expect them to carry the same weight as arguments supported by reason and evidence, I'm content to be a mere "debunker." I think, however, you are very confused, if Merriam-Webster's definition is accurate at all.

…while Critical thinking and reason is important.. you really demonstrate serious bias and negativity

Where? How? Do you understand the difference between a claim and an argument?

and a lack of research into other areas of study that would perhaps provide you with a broader understanding of the world, science and consciousness.

On what basis do you make this accusation?

Not everything is black and white..

Where on this site has anyone claimed otherwise?

and reductionist materialistic science IS very old school….

Scientific or methodological materialism is a required assumption in order to conduct science at all, as Eugenie Scott explains better than I can. This does not preclude persuing other avenues of thought at your leisure, but you aren't at liberty to invoke magic or imagination, and then label it "science." Well, I suppose you're at liberty to do so, but don't expect to see your efforts received well in peer review, or even considered at all.

I would get up to speed on the more recent info out there.

Again, I recommend actually knowing what you're talking about before straw-manning an entire website. If you were doing it on purpose, at least we could write you off as a troll, but I think you're truly confused, not to mention a bit full of yourself.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 02 Sep 2010 14:38 by TheGreatJuju Show more

Re: Your anti drug bias.

Astrogeek 02 Sep 2010 17:01

What about your anti-science bias? "… reductionist materialistic science IS very old school …"

Here's the problem. You are talking about something entirely different when you speak about the use of "psychedelic drugs" (which pharmacology terms "hallucinogenic drugs") in spiritual rituals (i.e., native american use, shamanism, etc) which is what your chosen name "Entheogen" implies, than what we are talking about, which is the claim by various 2012 proponents that the use of hallucinogenic drugs is a valid scientific investigative tool.

As you can imagine, we reject that claim. Drug use might make you feel more creative, or make you feel like you are thinking more clearly, but that doesn't mean that because Jenkins ingests psilocybin mushrooms, has a series of visions about the Maya, their calendar and their cosmology, that the visions are in any way connected to reality.

The fact that Jenkins interpretations are wildly wrong is one indication that his drug use is not a valid investigative tool. The fact that Jenkins thinks that people who disagree with him are infested with mind parasites and are seeking to 'deny humanity access to their multidimensional birthright' is another.

Personally, I don't care if people are off somewhere getting stoned and imagining that their hallucinations are reality. I do care when they push those hallucinations on other people as part of the entire 2012 nonsense.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: Your anti drug bias.

Ken (guest) 02 Sep 2010 21:25

Quote "… reductionist materialistic science IS very old school …"

Is it now? Historically we have had synthetic spiritual speculations since time out of mind, at least 5000 years. And where has that led? Some of the earlier manifestations of this are the pyramids of Egypt, great achievements in their own way of course but ultimately useless except now as a tourist attractions. All based on the spiritual idea that the king was some sort of a god. I doubt there are many now who accept the menagerie of Egyptian gods and the attendant mish - mash of magic and syncretistic guesswork that went with them.

Somewhat later we had the forced suicide of Socrates for being an atheist and promoting atheistic ideas by his endless questions. Need I point out witch burnings? What about Dr. Arguelles alleged claim that he is a reincarnated Maya?

It is difficult to imagine any thing leading to the improvement of the material conditions of humans that proceeded from thinking that was not reductionist and materialistic, from the invention of the wheel to the germ theory of disease.

Reductionist material thinking has been an important mode of thought in western civilisation for perhaps 450 years. That's less than 10% of known history. Unlike some other modes of thought it attempts to make sense of known facts, and when that does not quite work, attempts to find other facts. At less than 10% of known history it's hardly "old school".

By contrast, some other modes of thought appear to be speculations based on nothing but ancient texts, all of which contain known errors of fact and some are on the face of it, fraudulent. That's when they are based on anything at all.