What lies in the in-betweenness of perceptual shift? Is this ability so cut-and-dry, black and white? Is there no twilight region, so to speak, between the two (or rather three) regions?
#14 Seeking twilight among perceptual and cosmological shifts Read More »
What is the nucleus for present-day and future researchers to keep in the back of their heads for future (confirmatory) evidence to crystallize upon?
#12 In search of nucleus upon which future evidence crystallizes Read More »
“In Galileo’s own mind faith in the reliability of the telescope and recognition of its importance were not two separate acts, rather, they were two aspects of the same process.”
#9 Applying Galilean “Propaganda” Methods to the Cosmology of Altered Inner Space Read More »
The scientist likely says that theories derive from numerical and qualitative facts, however, the anarchist like Feyerabend would propose that facts can come from theories. What is the better method: theory from facts or facts from theory?
#8 What is the better method: theory from facts or facts from theory? Read More »
I identify with Feyerabend’s famous principle of “anything goes” since science needs new tools, or to revisit old tools, to tackle never-before-attempted inquiries into psychedelics. At such an early stage of psychedelic science, we must try everything when researching these substances and see what works and what doesn’t.
#7 At what point does the anarchist show his hand? Read More »
When I read Kuhn talking about faith, it makes me wonder how a stereotypical faith-less scientist musters up enough faith to explore alternatives in explaining anomalies within his/her current paradigm.
How do we account for many scientists’ acceptance of tried-and-true, and once anomalous, theories and concepts from decades or centuries ago, but they ignore or discredit current anomalies, i.e. the possible next big thing? It’s shockingly hypocritical, I just don’t understand it.
Nobody likes being forced to do anything. Members of the old paradigm don’t have to agree with new evidence and methods that explain anomalies, leading to new paradigms. But at their own peril.
#4 How can members from competing paradigms better understand each other? Read More »
As practitioners wrap up problems to solidify the paradigm, cracks in the framework, and thus the dominant mode of thinking about something, begin to show themselves.
I read John C. Lilly’s second autobiography to better understand his mind and methods.