#11 Harnessing solitude in order to create
Starting in late April 2020 I will crawl into a dark hole, far away from all loved ones, with only my books to read and my computer on which to transcribe ideas.
#10 Psychedelics for sale in the marketplace of ideas
John Stuart Mill’s “marketplace of ideas.” In it, he compares people’s ideas as fighting for social acceptance and dominance over one another. Likewise, the same happens regarding psychedelics in public discourse.
#9 Applying Galilean “Propaganda” Methods to the Cosmology of Altered Inner Space
“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.”
#8 What is the better method: theory from facts or facts from theory?
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?
#7 At what point does the anarchist show his hand?
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.
#6 Having faith in past theories and concepts is necessary for having faith in future ones
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.
#5 The shock of accepting past scientific anomalies while at the same time rejecting current ones
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.
#4 How can members from competing paradigms better understand each other?
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.
#3 What kind of attitude should scientists take knowing that anomalies will eventually threaten their paradigm?
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.
#2 How does one not sound crazy when communicating highly subjective states brought on by psychedelics?
I read John C. Lilly’s second autobiography to better understand his mind and methods.