Xref: utzoo sci.misc:1047 talk.philosophy.misc:925
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg
From: glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Where do you find the future? (was Re: Omni-Americans)
Message-ID: <2923@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 88 00:37:27 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> <2885@sfsup.UUCP> <2762@ihlpe.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: glg@/guest4/glgUUCP (xt1112-G.Gleason)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems
Lines: 81

In article <2762@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes:
>In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:
>(in a very well stated posting)
>| In article <2724@ihlpe.ATT.COM> res@ihlpe.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt, AT&T-DSG @ Indian Hill West) writes:

>| What is my point?  Only that a lot of what gets passed off as science
>| is nothing but conventional dogma.  

>No.  What is passed off as science is the "currently accepted" view of
>the universe, as derived from theory and experiment, and filtered
>through human frailty.  It is very hard for me to accept the word
>"dogma" applied to science.  To me dogma implies belief despite
>contrary evidence.  While an individual scientist may be dogmatic in
>believing his/her own pet theory, Science as a whole tends to move in
>the directions indicated by evidence.  This is NOT to say that the
>movement is rapid, or that Truth is accepted as self evident.  Rather,
>it just says that the weight of evidence will eventually overwhelm
>resistance.

Exactly my point, there is too much reliance on a "currently accepted"
view, which in effect slows down scientific investigations.  Too many
people just referencing other works for authority, that it often takes
decades for some errors to stop resurfacing after being retracted.

What I am saying is that the "currently accepted" theory is so well
taught that few "scientists" are creative enough to discover something
completely new, or self-confident enough to believe they could possibly
discover anything truely revolutionary.  We need to train our minds to
be more flexible, creative, etc.

>| When Timothy Leary was experimenting ...

>I am not very knowledgeable about Leary's work, so I cannot comment on
>it in clear conscience, but I can, perhaps, present a different view of
>some of the conclusions you reach.

Perhaps it would be better not to comment if you are not knowledgeable.

>| ... According to the standard model, his experiments should have
>| been repeated and either verified, or refuted.

>Agreed.  I do not know if anyone did try to do so.

>| Instead conventional
>| wisdom says these drugs are dangerous, and cannot be used by anyone,
>| not even a scientific investigator,

>I am not sure that that is true.  I have seen a number of articles
>dealing with legitimate research into very potent drugs (hallucinogens,
>barbiturates, etc.) for the treatment of a number of disorders.  It IS
>recognized by the researchers that the drugs are dangerous and must be
>handled carefully.  It IS NOT the view that NO-ONE can work with them.

I would not base an oppinion on a few articles.  I sure you are aware
that there is a lot of dis-information out on the topic of drugs, so
a deeper investigation is warranted.

>| and everyone thinks Leary is nothing
>| but a drugged out crackpot.

>Certainly "everyone" loses respect for someone who becomes addicted to
>the drugs he is researching, especially when "everyone" knows how
>dangerous they are to the well-being and sanity of the drug user.  If
>the researcher becomes this intimately involved with his work, then the
>rest of the world is justified in viewing the results of that work with
>some skepticism.  Is Leary a "drugged out crackpot?"  I do not know,
>but I do view his pronouncements much more skeptically than I would if
>he did not partake of his own medicine.

You provide a perfect example of what I am talking about.  You don't
know anything about the facts, and you're calling someone you don't
know anything about an addict.  You're comment about what "everyone"
knows is in the same catagory.  Leary report's zero "bad" trips because
of a positive set and setting, and that everyone was participating
because they wanted to.

There is a history of scientists trying things out on themselves.  In
this case it is probably a good idea for the researcher to have some
experience with the brain states he plans to induce it others.

Gerry Gleason