endlessness said:
Just smoking DMT by itself doesnt necessarily mean you are doing science. But if you dont claim it is science, then you arent 'masquerading' anything. And that doesnt mean it wont be a valuable and learning experience, at least from a subjective standpoint.
That being said, smoking DMT can be a part of a scientific experiment, underground or not. But for that to happen you need to follow a certain methodology, isolate variables, use certain standardized instruments for data collection, etc.
Emphasis mine
I just wanted to reiterate this post as it's the most important and relevant one in the thread. After reviewing the Breaking Convention presentation in
this thread, I can see there is a gap of understanding regarding basic research methodology and the scientific method.
To quote from wikipedia:
The scientific method is a continuous process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.
Scientific method - Wikipedia
Going with the stated intention from the BC presentation: "That intention was to understand the causal nature of the DMT experience, beyond inhaling the potent vapour". A bit vague for my tastes, but let's see if we can make an attempt to design a study pertinent to this inquiry.
Photo also courtesy of wikipedia:
So we observe that DMT is some wacky weird stuff and we'd like to gain some insight into just what lies behind those weird wacky experiences when we put it in our pipe.
So we'd begin by formulating a hypothesis. This is where we take that vague intention based on our observations and create a measurable, testable, and most importantly, falsifiable hypothesis. So let's go with something like "Vaporized DMT will provide consistent visual and emotional effects across repeated exposures under differing environmental variables." Perhaps not in line with the authors original intention, but it moar or less fits with the subsequent trial conditions and despite being a very subjective level of measurement, it's at least easily falsifiable. Either the effects using the same batch of material, at the same dosage, under the same conditions, in the same subject, will be consistent in different environments (indoors or outdoors), or they will not. A rather poor example, but it gives the gist of what we are looking for.
Now that we have something to test and some way to measure it, we can begin experimenting. This is where rigorous control of variables comes into play. So we begin by vaporizing say 10 mg, eyes open in our bedroom, at exactly 11:11 AM. We carefully analyze and document the visual and emotional effects we experience. We try this test many times under the same conditions, say every day at 11:11 for a month and we look for consistency. If the effects here are not consistent, we have to throw our hypothesis out and create a better one. For the sake of argument, let's say they are. Every time I smoke 10 mg of DMT with my eyes open in my bedroom at 11:11 AM I get the same feeling and see consistent visual patterns. So now we change our chosen variable, we get up and go to garden and we smoke 10 mg of DMT, eyes open, at 11:11 AM every day for a month. For the sake of argument let's say effects are consistent between these trials as well. I get the same visual patterns and emotional feelings every time I smoke in my garden.
But what's this? I get a bit of a different feeling when I smoke in the garden rather than in my bedroom. The visual patterns in the full sunlight are different than they are in the indirect light of my bedroom. My hypothesis is invalid and I have to either improve it or scrap it and start over with one that actually fits the evidence I have gathered. It looks like those differences in light levels are a variable I didn't account for, how can I control for that or alter my hypothesis to include it?
That bit right there is what research is really about. We are constantly (re)evaluating our carefully gathered data and refining the way we ask questions and gather future data to come to a more clear understanding of the phenomena we are investigating. Nothing is ever going to be 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor are we ever going to be so self assured that we've found the final and ultimate truth. We can simply point to the evidence we have and say this data supports the hypothesis we've come up with so far, but if you can demonstrate that this hypothesis is false and create another hypothesis that this data supports even better then we will test that and hopefully continue to move ever closer to a more accurate understanding of the topic we are investigating.
Does that help to give some clarity regarding how this level of structure and carefully controlled measurement helps other researchers to accurately repeat the experiments and test the hypothesis? This repeatability is the fail safe that demonstrates we are nearer to some level of objectivity when everyone who adheres to the same conditions get the same results.
One person smoking DMT at different doses under different conditions in different locations in what basically amounts to uncontrolled conditions is just anecdotal evidence and doesn't really provide the greater community of researchers with any objective data to attempt to repeat and falsify, thus this data doesn't move us any closer to actually shedding light on the stated goal of "understanding the causal nature of the DMT experience". Whereas following the scientific method and engaging in rigorous control of variables and collection of data, actually helps us to do just that, move toward an objective understanding of this curious phenomena that is the DMT experience.
Before denouncing materialist science as some sort of dogmatic cult, which I can agree is a characteristic it takes on in many cases when researchers and academics forget these fundamental processes and start to take current hypothesis as gospel truth, I encourage you to actually understand and utilize these carefully designed methods and see that this is actually an incredibly useful tool for moving closer to our collective goal of increased objectivity and understanding.
I applaud your desire to want to perform research, I'd just suggest you work on applying a moar rigorous methodology so that your contribution will be useful for others working toward similar goals.
In addition to utilizing moar control in your experiments, I'd highly suggest the use of this nice standardized
template in cataloging your future experiences, so they are both consistent across your self-reporting and with the greater body of experience reports here on the forum. This will allow for their inclusion as part of larger scale data collection efforts analyzing consistency in experiences across multiple subjects. Just some food for thought, this community freely offers a lot of tools and peer support that can be exceedingly useful in furthering your personal, and our collective, research agendas, should you choose to engage with them.
thank you, rude-ism only makes talking fruitless