Actually it is not. We speak of theories of mind, not facts of mind. Algebra, arithmetic, physics, chemistry, such things are science. There is no proof that anything any psychiatrist or psychologist ever said has a factual basis. Of course you can use statistics, also very factual, about how many patients have this or that. But that is not psychology in itself.

Be that as it may, you will be able only to deal with the surface. If it doesn't go much deeper than cause and effect, that is, I take a substance and as a consequence I see things, then the science stops rather soon. Making classifications on entities might be considered a scientific approach, it is pragmatic at least, but these entities can only be described anecdotally. And science spits on that. Look at the UFO phenomenon. If someone sees something that cannot be repeated, they dismiss it.

I can. But not to make things overly complex I'll let it go. :d Just for the sake of discussion mind you!

I don't need to understand such things to get some meaningful insights from a trip. That could be different for you.

But to me the psychedelic experience belong more to the paranormal/intuitive/spiritual phenomenon than to science. I mentioned how I find it strange that people who deal with the intuitive/paranormal/spiritual things that slide in front of our senses ride the leg of science like horny dogs for approval. You can use science all you like but the scientific community won't be impressed and they would sooner say it is fringe science or junk science.

I believe strongly, in an intuitive way, that science can never and will never be able to predict any outcome from the content of the trip. It is by default, by default, escaping its methodology.

We are talking about consciousness here, which is unmeasurable.

McKenna talked about how cartesian thinking was about how science would speak of primary and secondary attributes. Secondary were things like color and feeling.

In the exact same way it is vice versa. Science can never describe the content in a meaningful way. If feeling is secondary to science, then logic is secondary to the trip.

The only way is to go alchemical on it. But I think that would work mostly for larger structures, like cosmology. Not an individual, emotional consciousness altering experience. Science shatters in the trip. You try take 50 grams dried shrooms and do methodological sampling of what you see.

Similarly, it is folly to do a scientific research using psychedelic art to predict the outcome of a test.

Trips are to tied to consciousness to take conclusions from to apply to more people in terms of content and its meaning. They can only do what Strassman did, that is, classify and categorize similar experiences from the anecdotal stories of the participants in the study. Which are only second hand materials. The people are the source but they speak of a subjective experience translated in terms so that a scientist can write them down. So it is not direct contact or observation with the content. So, in a way, Strassman did a secondary attribute research.

Now let's say Strassman would do DMT himself. To directly observe, in a scientific way...but that cannot be done, cause as soon as he would break through, science would be blown to bits. Many people say you should not control the DMT trip cause it might bite you in the ass. Science however is about control. You control the conditions of an experiment, to standardize it so results can be checked to that standard. In a trip, there is no such option.

So even if Strassman would have done a direct approach, dust in the wind my friend.

Science is not the tool to understand content. You can only use it to research the secondary attributes of trips.