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.
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.
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.
John Lilly is a psychedelic scientist and explorer extraordinaire. He is known for a number of things such as: researching isolation and then developing sensory deprivation tanks to explore states of consciousness devoid of any stimuli, studying the effects of LSD while in his isolation tanks, working with dolphins including giving LSD to them, and spending time and teaching at the Esalen Institute in California.