shocked Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Tripping on Science: The Psychedelic Community Contests Terms by Peter Bebergal at the revealer http://therevealer.org/archives/5262 shocked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les genser Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Terrific article thank you. I think Steven Jay Gould is full of shit though.... at the highest levels, there is no conflict whatever between science and spirituality. There are still lots of 'scientists' and 'eminent scientific bodies' out there who, because of their own preconceptions and prejudice (which is of itself not very 'scientific') just completely ignore, denigrate or ridicule truth when it is presented to them. I did have some of the same discomfort at the use of the term 'Entheogen' by a drug company, and for many of the same reasons mentioned in the article. And the thought of what big pharma would do with psychedelics if they only could is apocalyptic. I liked this quote: “I’m very unconvinced that the non-psychoactive cluster headache drug in question belongs in the category ‘entheogen.’ Furthermore, one mark of authenticity of a spiritual undertaking is that it is not organized for profit. Time will tell.” I do think though, that whatever their motivation it is good that someone is finally doing something specifically for CH. What I want to know is, when they are done, how will it compare pricewise with real acid? Good article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHfather Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Les, since Stephen Jay Gould is a hero of mine, it gets my back up to see him referred to as "full of shit." So let me say that he is talking about something else (or, was talking about something else, since he died in 2002 and this quote comes from 1997) than what you accuse him of saying. His quote refers to the "non-overlapping magesteria, science and religion." The "magesterium" is a particularized term, referring to the authority of the church (particularly the Catholic church, where the term is quite important) to teach true doctrine as derived from divine guidance, and Gould is extending that term to refer the authority of science to teach "truths" that it has discovered. What he is saying in the full 1997 article--which you can read here http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html -- is that these magesteria ought not to overlap ("The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly."), but there is no well-defined "no-man's land" between them. He's looking particularly at the Church's positions on evolution. He's talking about religion and science (primarily about a religion and science), which is quite different, I think, from what you're talking about, "spirituality and science." Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shocked Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 Science or spirituality? http://www.evolver.net/user/spygirlpix/blog/zealotry_enlightenment_crippling_credibility_drug_policy_reform shocked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les genser Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Facts must never be allowed to interfere with the opinions of the ignorant. I am reminded that in the early days of psychedelic research, it was all academics, philosophers and scientists doing the advocating until they were stopped by the righteous. Fear and mistrust will quite literally prevent people from even hearing arguments for drug reform, regardless of the credentials of the presenter. Oh, and I apologize for being dickish about Stephen J Gould back in January. I'm actually a big fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.