Where to draw the line?

[Reivax]

In the last few years I have taken on-board a more skeptical and rational approach, which has lead me to see the error of my ways. I have enjoyed being an advocate of critical thinking, which was why I ultimately decided to join this forum as it strongly encourages it. Yet I am still a bit of a n00b and have a lot to learn.

I still sometimes find myself partly reverting back to my old ways of thinking, but will usually succeed in self-correcting. I have come across a number of what I would call 'wishful ideas', that seem to be too good to be true and perhaps are presented in a very convincing pseudo-scientific way which I am yet to fully realize.

I understand that there are degrees of rationality and critical thinking, but I am unsure how to filter what is essentially complete woo, and what is perhaps reasonable theoretic thought. Some past and present examples:

Terence McKenna's Stoned Ape Theory. For those who are unfamiliar with this Theory:

McKenna proposed that the transformation from our early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in out diet - an event which according to his theory took place in about 100,000 BC (this is when he believed that our species diverged from the Homo genus). He based his theory on the main effects, or alleged effects, produced by the mushroom. One of the effects that comes about from the ingestion of low doses, which agrees with one of scientist Roland Fischer's findings from the late 60s-early 70s, is it significantly improves the visual acuity of humans - so theoretically, of other human-like mammals too. According to McKenna, this effect would have definitely prove to be of evolutionary advantage to our omnivorous hunter-gatherer ancestors that would have stumbled upon it "accidentally"; as it would make it easier for them to hunt.

In higher doses, McKenna claims, the mushroom acts as a sexual stimulator, which would make it even more beneficial evolutionary, as it would result in more offspring. At even higher doses, the mushroom would have acted to "dissolve boundaries", which would have promoted community-bonding and group sexual activities-that would result in a mixing of genes and therefore greater genetic diversity.

The mushroom, according to McKenna, had also given humans their first truly religious experiences (which, as he believed, were the basis for the foundation of all subsequent religions to date). Another factor that McKenna talked about was the mushroom's potency to promote linguistic thinking. This would have promoted vocalisation, which in turn would have acted in cleansing the brain (based on a scientific theory that vibrations from speaking cause the precipitation of impurities from the brain to the cerebrospinal fluid), which would further mutate our brain. All these factors according to McKenna were the most important factors that promoted our evolution towards the Homo sapiens species. After this transformation took place, our species would have begun moving out of Africa to populate the rest of the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_Theory_of_Human_Evolution

Would you consider this pseudoscience and/or woo?

While I am aware that most of Mckenna's claims lack empirical evidence and are essentially pseudo-scientific (For example his Novelty Theory), there does seem to be aspects of his research which take on a more reasonable approach.

Other examples include: Ray Kurzweil's Technological Singularity Theory, Michio Kaku's String Field Theory and Hannes Alfvén's controversial Plasma Cosmology Theory.

I admit I am not very knowledgeable in most of these areas of study (Physics, Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology, etc.) But I would posit that these people are all knowledgeable and intelligent. This being said, with what level of criticism should we view and respond to their ideas?

While the obvious answer might be that these theories are merely a middle-ground between woo and science, I'm sure there are some willing to draw a more black and white picture. Are they exactly that, a sort of bridge between rationality and irrationality? Or should I treat them with the same severity that I would a psychic or astrologer?



Thanks in advance for responses!

 

[Cuddles]

Are they exactly that, a sort of bridge between rationality and irrationality? Or should I treat them with the same severity that I would a psychic or astrologer?

Without commenting on any of the specifics, there is no middle ground and everything should be treated with the same severity. If it turns out to be real science, it will survive that treatment and come out stronger than ever. If not, it will be exposed for the nonsense it is.

This is a point that many people don't seem to understand about science, especially in relation to skepticism and debunking. The treatment of pseudoscience and other woo is far, far more lenient than the treatment of actual science. Science is regularly attacked and publicly torn to shreds in journals, conferences, and so on. All pseudoscience tends to get is a few critical comments on blogs and the like written in people's spare time.

As for the actual theory here, as you say there simply doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it. Without having read the book, it appears to be little more than "This mushroom may have certain effects, and those effects could possibly have some kind of evolutionary advantage". Even leaving aside the lack of evidence to support the claims, there just doesn't seem to be any scientific hypothesis here. Given McKenna's obvious bias in thinking hallucinogens are somehow special, there seems little reason to take it at all seriously.

The technological singularity is little more than just vague speculation. It's not scientific at all, but as far as I'm aware it doesn't really claim to be.

String field theory is entirely scientific and I really have no idea why anyone would claim otherwise. It's just one of many variations on string theory, and like most is not currently testable but does make predictions and is falsifiable in principle. Some people just seem to have an irrational hatred for the word "string".

Plasma cosmology was scientific when first proposed, although not particularly well supported even then. Science has since moved on and Alfven's ideas on this point simply do not match with observations. So this one is something of a mix - originally scientific and could easily be studied scientifically now, but for the most part only actually promoted these days by crackpots.

 

[Marduk]

I think its fairly obvious that Mckenna was wrong
heres why

McKenna proposed that the transformation from our early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in out diet - an event which according to his theory took place in about 100,000 BC

After this transformation took place, our species would have begun moving out of Africa to populate the rest of the planet.

heres the distribution map for Psilocybe cubensis

you might notice a very relevant country where the mushroom doesn't grow
the clue would be in the name "Cubensis" which means "coming from Cuba",

 

[Reivax]

Thanks for your reply Marduk, this is a very good point. I just re-read some of McKenna's book The Food Of The Gods, and could not find much information besides reaffirmations of what you just said, then it sort of just moves on and does not explain how it was ingested by the African homo erectus.

Only Stropharia cubensis contains psilocybin in concentrated amounts and is free of nausea-producing compounds. It alone is pandemic – it occurs throughout the tropical regions, at least wherever cattle of the zebu (Bos indicus) type graze. This raises a number of questions. Does Stropharia cubensis occur exclusively in the manure of zebu or can it occur in the manure of other cattle? How recently has it reached its various habitats? The first specimen of Psilocybe cubensis was collected by the American botanist Earle in Cuba in 1906, but current botanic thinking places the species’ point of origin in Southeast Asia. At an archaeological dig in Thailand at a place called Non Nak Tha, which has been dated to 15,000 B.P., the bones of zebu cattle have been found coincident with human graves. Stropharia cubensis is common in the Non Nak Tha area today.

Food Of The Gods, Terence McKenna.

However, after doing a Google search, there seems to be some indication that this fungus originated in Africa, and later spread to other parts of the world, and was then discovered in Cuba. Shroomy suggests that it can be found to grow in Africa as well.

http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=77

http://www.shroomery.org/8461/Which-psilocybin-mushrooms-grow-wild-in-my-area

But unfortunately, I don't think there is ample information on it. Not sure if you have any more useful links on it?

 

[Reivax]

Thanks for your reply Cuddles, some good food for thought, unlike psilocybin mushrooms I guess I should really read up more on Technological Singularity and String Theory in general. I find it really hard to comprehend and take as a realistic model of the universe. Extremely abstract, but then again, I guess most quantum physics tends to be exactly that with quantum entanglement and other spooky phenomenon.

 

[Marduk]

Thanks for your reply Marduk, this is a very good point. I just re-read some of McKenna's book The Food Of The Gods, and could not find much information besides reaffirmations of what you just said, then it sort of just moves on and does not explain how it was ingested by the African homo erectus.



Food Of The Gods, Terence McKenna.

However, after doing a Google search, there seems to be some indication that this fungus originated in Africa, and later spread to other parts of the world, and was then discovered in Cuba. Shroomy suggests that it can be found to grow in Africa as well.

http://www.entheology.org/edoto/anmviewer.asp?a=77

http://www.shroomery.org/8461/Which-psilocybin-mushrooms-grow-wild-in-my-area

But unfortunately, I don't think there is ample information on it. Not sure if you have any more useful links on it?

the references to "Though this fungus originated in Africa," are referring to the South African variety which has been farmed there since 2002, before that, it didn't exist in Africa

I don't buy the claim on some websites that it only grows in domesticated cattle poop either, it was known to the Maya and Aztec, they didn't have domesticated cattle,

also, since Mckenna wrote that we know a lot more about human evolution, currently we are thought to have descended from Homo Heidelbergensis, the Erectus origin has fallen by the wayside. Heidelbergensis pushes back what we recognise as human behaviour to around 600,000 years ago (homo sapiens - 195,000 ya ) so Mckenna was wrong on almost every point.

Also, it is my understanding that McKenna took a lot of drugs, thats never been good for scientific hypothesis, philosophy yes, science no

 

[quarky]

Wasn't McKenna simply philosophizing?
philosophy needn't be held to the scrutiny which defines science.

As I recall, didn't he also postulate that the mushroom spores came from off-planet sources?
I can't imagine that McKenna considered himself a scientist.

 

[Reivax]

Marduk, thanks for clearing that up, held that theory in some esteem for a while, but have failed to really do any more research into it, but yeah, seems extremely unlikely now as you've highlighted. I think saying McKenna took alot of drugs is an understatement from what I've read. I agree with your last statement, seems to be the case with most of his other theories and claims as well.

quarky, yeah I read about that as well, he suggested that psilocybin mushrooms were extraterrestrial, I'm guessing through some sort of exo-genesis theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=185tOHHGanA&feature=player_embedded

If I recall correctly, he was not only a philosopher, but a critic of science.

 

[Amapola]

I'm an amateur mycologist so I know a little bit about mushrooms but don't mess around with any of the types of mushrooms mentioned. I do really question this statement in your quote from McKenna:

This would have promoted vocalisation, which in turn would have acted in cleansing the brain (based on a scientific theory that vibrations from speaking cause the precipitation of impurities from the brain to the cerebrospinal fluid), which would further mutate our brain.

"Cleansing the brain"?! What is that, exactly? What would be cleansed out, and how does he know that? Can it be measured? Also, I will point out that the time for mutation is before the organism is born. You can not "mutate" the brain in an adult to get some sort of evolutionary advantage.

Reading the sentence I quoted above made me doubt McKenna has a good grasp on what the heck evolution even *is*. It reminds me a little of that idea that if you cut the tails off of adult mice, you would somehow get a race of tailless mice.

 

[Reivax]

Good point, I honestly have no idea what this supposed scientific theory that it is based on, is, and who originally suggested it? Just gave it a search, and this thread was one of the top links...But as you said, on face value, it does fail to comply with evolutionary theory - seems like a form of Lamarckism to me.

 

[jayh]

(based on a scientific theory that vibrations from speaking cause the precipitation of impurities from the brain to the cerebrospinal fluid), which would further mutate our brain.

Doesn't he realize that a scientific theory is an idea with credible evidence behind it. Just having a wingnut idea doesn't make it a scientific theory.

Some years ago our local humanist group had a speaker who would talk about his thoughts on the historic adoption of the cross and other issues. He had this elaborate slide presentation with a very official sounding name for his 'research group'.

by the Q&A time it just took a few questions from the audience to completely unravel his case and admit he hadn't thought about those objections. This sounds similar.

 

[Amapola]

Reivax, to answer your original question, it is *always* appropriate to ask questions. Even if it is about valid scientific theory, ask questions! Scientists themselves ask questions, and are constantly testing their ideas.

Sometimes you read things and wonder if it's true or not but generally, asking a few questions, considering the source and doing a little internet searching can tell you a lot. I think one of the problems is, a lot of people never even ask a question. They just assume whatever they are told is true.

Now, of course, maybe what McKenna suggested actually happened. But he had no credible evidence that I can see, and some of his ideas suggest to me that he was just wishing this might be true. He was someone who studied art history. I would not expect such a person to come up with a credible idea about evolutionary biology since it was not his area of study, and even if he had, it would come under the same strict scrutiny that all valid scientific ideas are subjected to.

 

[godless dave]

On the visual acuity thing - psilocibin might improve visual acuity while people are under the influence*, but that doesn't explain how early humans were able to hunt and gather when they no longer had access to psilocibin. There are still hunter-gather societies today and, while some use hallucinogenic drugs, others do not, and they all seem to be able to do visual tasks.

Ditto for fecundity. Even if we accept that psilocibin makes people horny**, increased sexual drive does not necessarily lead to increased fecundity. There are lots of cultures that don't use psilocibin that have positive population growth.









*in my experience, the opposite is true

** hell, yes

 

[Almo]

In higher doses, McKenna claims, the mushroom acts as a sexual stimulator, which would make it even more beneficial evolutionary, as it would result in more offspring.

What I noticed. I'm going on instinct here, but I think with the long gestation of humans and the average frequency of sexual relations, and the nearly 50/50 split in how common the sexes are that this would not have much of an effect.

 

[Libra]

I think its fairly obvious that Mckenna was wrong
heres why


heres the distribution map for Psilocybe cubensis
you might notice a very relevant country where the mushroom doesn't grow
the clue would be in the name "Cubensis" which means "coming from Cuba",

(Can't post links yet, so had to take them out.)

Only if you limit it to cubensis mushrooms. there are many more psilocybin-containing mushrooms, and they are spread all over the world. These included, but are not limited to :

Psilocybe cyanescens
Psilocybe semilancaeta
Psilocybe baeocystis
Psilocybe bohemica
Psilocybe mairei
Psilocybe serbica
Psilocybe stundi
Psilocybe Pelliculosa
Psilocybe caerulescens
Panaeolus papilionaceus
Panaeolus subbalteatus
Panaeolus sphictrinus
Panaeolus foenisecii
Panaeolus retirugis
Inocybe aeruginascens
Inocybe corydalina Quel.
Inocybe haemacta Berk. & Br.
Inocybe tricolor Kuhner
Inocybe coelestium Kuyper
Inocybe calamistrata
Gymnopilus purpuratus
Gymnopilus junionius
Gymnopilus validipes
Gymnopilus spectabilis
Conocybe cyanopus
Pluteus salicinus

Jochen Gartz did some excellent work on this.

There are other active mushrooms not containing psilocybin. The Amanita Muscaria is probably the most well-known one.

This is the one John Allegro concluded in "The Mushroom and the Cross" was infact Jesus, from his translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, way back then. A difficult read, but absolutely fascinating.

There's also Gordon Wasson which made a very convincing argument in that the Amanita Muscaria is currently the best candidate for SOMA, as referred to in the Rig Veda.

Hofmann, Wasson & Ruck also published a piece "The Road to Eleusis" regarding the Greek initiation ceremonies conducted anually for thousands of years. They postulate ergot, a fungal parasite on barley, as the source of LSA causing the intoxication.

Then there's the whole mead and beer situation, which has been shown to go back to at least the beginning of agriculture and big social human settlements. Not only would ethanol come into play here, but the barley used to make beer probably was contaminated with ergot from time to time, which would lead to LSA intoxication. Honey made from certain flowers is also known to be psychoactive and the mead made from this would be too.

When seen collectively, it's undeniable that intoxication is deeply ingrained in our history, and probably played a much bigger role than what it does today and than what it's credited for.

 

[dafydd]

On the visual acuity thing - psilocibin might improve visual acuity while people are under the influence*, but that doesn't explain how early humans were able to hunt and gather when they no longer had access to psilocibin. There are still hunter-gather societies today and, while some use hallucinogenic drugs, others do not, and they all seem to be able to do visual tasks.

Ditto for fecundity. Even if we accept that psilocibin makes people horny**, increased sexual drive does not necessarily lead to increased fecundity. There are lots of cultures that don't use psilocibin that have positive population growth.









*in my experience, the opposite is true

** hell, yes

It doesn't.

 

[C_Felix]

I'm heading out to lunch, so I didnt' have time read it all...I'll read it all later, but this is what I have to add:'

http://picardartclass.ytmnd.com/